THE   VINDICATION 


BY    THE 


ilEY.    irEORCE   JUNKIN,   D.D 


\  L  I  B  R. -^  K.  "52" 

PRINCETON,  N.  J. 
The  Stephen  Collins  Donaticni.^ 

BX  9193  .B3  J9  1836 
Junkin,  George,  1790-1868. 
The  vindication,  containing 
a  history  of  the  trial  of 


\    ■ 
V 

(. 


THE 

VINDICATION, 

CONTAINING  ^  "^  j(   , 

A    HISTORY 

OF  THE 

TRIAL  OF  THE  REV.  ALBERT  BARNES, 

BY  THE  SECOND  PRESBYTERY, 

AND 

BY  THE  SYNOD  OF  PHILADELPHIA. 

TO  WHICH  ARE  APPENDED, 


NEW  SCHOOLISM  IN  THE  SEVENTEENTH  COMPARED  WITH  NEW 
8CH00LISM  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 


BY  REV.  GEORGE  JUNKIN,  D.D. 


PHILADELPHIA : 
PRINTED  BY  WM.  S.  MARTIEN. 

1836.- 


INDEX. 


Page 

Ability  and  Inability, 40,  48,  50 

Accuser,  opprobrium  of  -----        -  5 

reasons  for        -----        -  6 

right  denied 7 

not  a  publisher  of  slander  -        -         .        -  9 

special  reason  for      -         -         -         -         -  10 

objections  to,  answered      .        -        -         -  H 

Adam,  his  ignorance, -  39 

covenant  with 64 

Adopting  act  of  1729, 23 

Appeal  to  Synod,             _-....  xx 

to  which ib 

Argument  begins, 3 

Baxter,  Richard,  on  guilt  and  punishment,        -         -  102 

Bradford,  Esq.  Thomas,  urges  trial,           _         -         .  xiv 

Calvin,  on  imputation,  misstated,      -         -         -         -  81 
Charges,  I.  34.  II.  37.  III.  39.  IV.  54.  V.  60.  VI.  72.  VII.  95.  VIII. 

112.  IX.  122.  X.  132. 

Constitution  of  church,  what"?           .         -         .         .  22 

Covenant  of  works  denied,      -----  38,  60 

proved,       -----  64 

equality  not  necessary,      *  -        -  69 

non-consent,        .         -        -        -  71 

Bort,  Synod,  its  doctrines  and  the  contrary,      -         -  145 

Edwards'  doctrine  of  ability, 46 

opposes  Arminian  free  will,       -         -        -  50 

views  perverted,       -----  79 

repenting  of  Adam's  sin,  -        -         -         -  91 

Ely,  Dr.,  denies  any  citation,           .        .         -        -  xii 

wishes  to  proceed  with  trial,     -        -        -  xvi 

Equivocal  terms,     -------  135 

Errors,  systematic           ------  31 

Explanation,  right  of,  denied,           -        -         -        -  37 

Faith,  an  act  only,           ------  54,  58 

Free-will,       --------  50 

leads  to  Antinominianism,         -        -         -  52 

Fundamentals,  no  difference  in  them,       -         -         -  154 

Grotius,  a  semi-Socinian, 107 

Guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  imputed,         —        -        -         .  95, 103 

Heresy,  terms,  why  not  in  charges,           -         .         -  14 


iv  INDEX. 

Pagre 

Imputation,  denied, 72, 85 

in  Confession,        .         .         .         -         -  78 

doctrine  misrepresented,         -        -         -  79,  83 

objections  against  it,      -         -         -  85,  124,  125 

Infants,  argument  from  case  of        -         -         -         -  100 

Judgment  of  2d  Presbytery.             ...         -  xvii 

ofSynotl, xxyi 

state  of  vote  on, ib 

Letters — Mr.  Barnes  to  Dr.  Junkin,         -         -        -  v 

Dr.  Junkin  to  Mr.  Barnes,          -         -        -  iv 

to  2d  Presbytery,     -         .         -  vi 

to  Mr.  Grant,            .        -         _  x 

Mr.  Eustace  to  Dr.  Junkin,        .        -         .  xi 

Presbytery  refuses  charges,       .         -         -  viii 
Presbytery  apprising  of  time  of  Presbytery 

meeting,       ------  xi 

Mason,  Dr.  J.  M.,  on  imputation,     -         -        -         -  84 

New-schoolism   in  the   17th  compared  with   New- 

schoolism  in  19th  century,        -        .         .        -  145 

Original  sin,  denied, — Synod  of  Dort,       -        -        -  95,  103 

0\Ven's  views,  misrepresented,        -        -        -        -  109 

Peace  prevailed  before  innovation,            .         .         -  145 

disturbed  by  it, 146 

Penalty,  Christ's  endurance  of  it  denied,           -         -  112 

proved, 113 

Pelagius'  views  and  character,         -         -        -        -  35,  53,  102 

Policy  in  the  I7th  and  19th  centuries,       -        -        -  152 

Presbytery,  2d,  special  meeting  of,           -        -         -  xii 

stated  meeting,         -        -        .        .  iii 

refuses  charges,       -         -        -        -  viii 

adjourned,  2d  April,          -         -         -  xi 

adjourned  June  30th  for  trial,    -        -  xiv 

refuses  to  proceed,    -        -        -        -  ib 

Repentance  for  Adam's  sin,              .         -        -        -  91 

Representation,  consent  not  necessary  to          -        -  71 

Romans  v.  12 — 22,  opened,      1        -         -        -         -  98 

Satisfaction,  full  affinity  with           -         -         -        .  120 
Subscription  to  Confession  refused  by  Arminius,       -  156 
System,  theological,  a  Presbyterian  bound  by  it,       -  17 
Mr.  Barnes  writes  under  its  in- 
fluence,      .        -        -         -  20 
Taylor,  Dr.,  agrees  with  Mr.  Barnes,       -        -        -  93,  m 
Terms,  vague,  used,        ------  105 

Toleration  claimed  by  Arminius,      -         -         -        -  157 

Trial,  daring  one  and  then  drawing  back,         -         -  xiv,  155 

Wilson,  Dr.  J.  P.,  faith  a  principle — its  object  Christ,  58 

on  covenant  of  works,           -        -  67 

on  righteousness,        -        -        -  125 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  HISTORY  FREFARATORY  TO  THE  ACTUAL  COMMENCEMENT  OF 

THE  TRIAD. 

In  February,  1835,  I  was  in  Philadelphia  on   business,  and 
whilst  there,  had  my  attention  called  to  the  new  work  of  Rev. 
Albert  Barnes,  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     This  arrest  of  at- 
tention was  by  an  unknown  correspondent  of  the  Presbyterian, 
over  the  signature  of  Veritas,  who  presented  a  number  of  extracts 
from  the  work,  accompanied  by  very  judicious  and  forcible  re- 
marks; pointing  out  the  errors  of  the  Notes,  and  their  opposition 
to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.     The  new  book,  as 
from  these  notices  might  well  be  expected,  was  a  subject  of  fre-- 
quent  conversation :  and  among  other  places,  at  the  table  of  my 
friend  and  host.  Rev.  John  Chambers,  who  stepped  up  to  his  study, 
and  brought  the  book  itself.  I  read  a  few  pages  in  it,  aad  was  induced 
to  procure  a  copy  to  examine  at  my  leisure.     This  examination; 
resulted  in   the   conviction,  right  or   wrong,  tliat,  as  no  other 
person  appeared  disposed  to  do  it,  it  would  be  proper  for  me  to 
comply  with  the  order  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  endeavour  t<> 
procure   an  ultimate   decision   on    these   controverted   subjects.- 
After  this  determination,  the  next  question  was  as  to  the  manner: 
and  here,  too,  it  appeared  to  me  the  Assembly  was  correct ;  the 
only  proper  way  w^as  to  bring  charges  against  the  author.    Before 
I  could  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  it  was  early  in  March;  and  it  ap- 
peared exceedingly  desirable  to  have  the  whole  matter  embraced 
v/ithin  as  short  a  space  of  time  as^  practicable  :  so  as  to  give  occasion^ 
to  the  least  possible  amount  of  agitation,  with  its  evils.   Hence  the 
plan  proposed  in  n^y  letter  below,  of  making  the  case  what,  in  civil 
matters,  is  called  an  amicable  sait.     Ignorant  of  it,  I  dropped  a 
line  to  brotiier  Steel,  requesting  him  to  let  me  know  when  the- 
Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  of  which  brother  Barnes  is  a 
member,  held  its  stated  meeting,  and  whether  it  would  be  practi^ 
cable  to  accomplish  the  object  as  proposed.     He  informed  me  by 
letter,  dated  the  12th  March,  that  the  stated  meeting  in  question 
was  to  have  been  late  in  April,  but  that  a  special  meeting  was 
about  to  be  called,  viz.  on  Friday,  the  20th,  for  the  purpose  of 
changing  the  time  of  holding  the  stated  meeting:  and  advised  to 
prepare  and  send  forward  to  him  my  paper,  and  promised  to  have 
it  presented,  &c.  Or,  if  Mr.  Barnesrefused  the  request  to  waive  his 
right  of  ten  day-s,  or  if  the  said  stated  meeting  should  be  fixed  too 
far  on  in  April,  to  receive  the  charges,  and  allow  the  ten  days  for 
preparation,  which  our  Book  guarantees  to  prosecuted  persons, 
and  to  finish  the  trial  before  the  Assembly,  then  he  would  endea- 

A 


IV  INTRODUCTION. 

vour  to  procure  a  jnu  re  nata  meeting-  to  receive  the  charges,  so 
that  they  miglit  come  up  at  the  stated  meeting.  Agreeably  to 
this  arrangement,  1  wrote  to  Mr.  Barnes  as  follows: 

Lafayette  College,  March  IGth,  1835. 
Rev.  and  Dear  Sir. — In  your  Notes  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, there  are  doctrines  set  forth,  which,  in  my  humble  opinion, 
are  contrary  to  tlie  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and  to 
the  word  of  God. 

It  a 'so  appears  to  me,  and  has  long  so  appeared,  that  these,  and 
certain  affiliated  doctrines,  have  been  the  chief  causes  of  the  un- 
happy distraction  over  which  we  all  mourn. 

A  third  opinion,  operating  to  the  production  of  this  communica- 
tion, is,  that  peace  and  union  in  evangelical  effort  cannot  take 
place,  so  long  as  these  important  doctrinal  points  remain  unsettled; 
and  that,  therefore,  all  the  friends  of  such  union  and  peace  ought 
to  desire  their  final  adjustment  by  the  proper  judicatories  of  the 
Church.  It  is  certainly  true  that  many  have  wished  to  see  them 
brought  up,  fairly  and  legally,  before  the  proper  tribunals,  uncon- 
nected with  mere  questions  of  ecclesiastical  policy,  and  without 
anyadmixture  of  personal  or  congregational  feelings.  Regret  has 
often  been  expressed  by  many,  and  by  myself  among  others,  that 
the  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  had  not,  at  the  outset,  instituted 
process  against  yourself,  instead  of  the  course  they  pursued.  I  am 
sure,  however,  they  did  what  they  thought  for  the  best.  It  is 
much  easier  to  find  fault  atler  a  measure  has  been  put  into  opera- 
tion, than  to  foresee  its  defects  and  prevent  them. 

Now,  dear  Brother,  your  recent  publication  has  re-opened  the 
door,  and,  unworthy  as  I  am,  and  incompetent  to  the  solemn  duty, 
yet  duty  1  feel  it  to  be  to  enter  it;  and  by  an  open,  fair,  candid, 
and  Christian  prosecution  of  the  case,  to  bring  out  a  formal  and 
legal  decision  of  your  Presbytery  on  the  points  alluded  to.  1 
therefore  intend,  Deo  volente,  to  prefer  charges  against  you, 
founded  solely  upon  your  Notes  on  Romanf,  and  referring  to  no 
other  evidence  for  their  support,  than  what  shall  be  deduced  from 
that  book. 

In  prosecuting  these  charges,  I  hope  I  shall  be  enabled  to  act 
with  gravity,  solemnity,  brotherly  affection,  and  all  the  respect  due 
to  a  court  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  object  is  peace  through  union  in 
the  Truth;  and  I  hope  the  God  of  Truth  and  Peace  will  direct  us 
to  a  happy  issue.  Most  conscientiously  do  I  believe  that  you  have 
fallen  into  dangerous  error.  I  feel  that  yoiir  doctrine  shakes  the 
foundation  of  my  personal  hopes  for  eternity.  If  it  be  true,  then 
I  cannot  "  read  my  title  clear,  to  mansions  in  the  skies."  Around 
the  discussion  of  a  subject  so  solemn,  I  cannot  doubt,  the  Son  of 
God  will  throw  a  hallowed  influence,  which  will  call  up  feelings 
very  different  from  those  that  too  often  agitate  ecclesiastical  bodies, 
where  principles  of  minor  consequence  acquire  exciting  power 
from  adventitious  circumstances. 


INTRODUCTION.  V 

May  I  now  ask  of  you  the  favour  to  transmit  to  Mr.  Henry 
McKeen's,  No.  142  Market  street,  a  note  with  responses  to  the 
following  queries,  viz: — 1.  Will  you  admit  the  Notes  on  Romans, 
bearing-  your  name,  to  be  your  own  production,  and  save  me  the 
trouble  of  proving  it  I  2.  Will  you  waive  the  constitutional  right 
often  days,  &.C.,  [Book  pp.  396-402,]  and  so  let  the  case  come  up 
and  pass  through  the  Presbytery  with  as  little  delay  as  possible ; 
provided  I  furnish  you  with  a  copy  of  the  charges  at  least  that 
number  of  days  beforehand  1 

To  these  postulates  I  can  see  no  reasonable  objection  on  your 
part,  and  presume  there  will  be  none. 

A  friend  of  mine  will  receive  your  reply  and  dispose  of  it  agreea- 
bly to  arrangements  already  made;  and  will  also  inform  me  of  the 
time  and  place  of  the  Presbytery's  meeting.  Your  brother  in  the 
Lord,  ,  GEO.  JUNKIN. 

To  this  letter  was  returned  the  following  answer : 

Philadelphia,  March  18th,  1835. 
Rev.  Sir: — Your  letter  of  the  16th  inst.  came  to  hand  to-day. 
In  regard  to  the  "  postulates"  which  you  have  submitted  to  my 
attention  in  your  letter,  I  remark  that  the  Notes  on  the  Romans 
are  my  production,  and  that  I  trust  I  shall  never  so  far  forget  my- 
self as  to  put  any  one  to  the  "  trouble  of  proving  it."  On  those 
Note^  I  have  bestowed  many  an  anxious,  a  prayerful,  and  a  plea- 
sant hour.  They  are  the  result  of  much  deliberate  attention ;  and 
of  all  the  research  which  my  circumstances,  and  my  time  permit- 
ted, I  commenced,  and  continued  them  with  the  humble  hope  of 
extending  my  usefulness  beyond  the  immediate  sphere  of  my  la- 
boursin  the  pulpit;  nor  have  I  any  reason  to  doubt  that,  in  this,  I 
was  under  the  governance  and  direction  of  that  sacred  Teacher, 
by  whom  the  Scriptures  were  inspired.  If  others  icould  make  a 
better  book  on  the  important  epistle  in  question,  1  should  heartily 
rejoice  in  their  doing  it.  I  have  never  been  so  vam  as  to  think 
that  in  the  exposition  of  a  book  like  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans — 
so  intrinsically  difficult — so  profound — so  often  the  subject  of  com- 
mentary and  controversy,  my  work  was  infallible;  or  that  there 
might  not  be  room  tor  much  honest  difference  of  opinion  and  ex- 
position. Nor  am  I  conscious  of  any  such  stubborn  attachment  to 
my  own  views  there  expressed,  as  to  be  unwilling  to  be  convinced 
of  their  error  if  they  are  incorrect,  or  to  retract  them  if  I  am  con- 
vinced of  their  error.  Whether  the  act  of  charging  a  minister 
with  heresy ;  of  arraigning  him  for  a  high  crime,  without  a  friend- 
ly note,  without  a  Christian  interview,  without  any  attempt  to 
convince  of  erroneous  interpretation,  be  the  Scripture  mode,  or 
most  likely  to  secure  the  desired  end,  belongs  to  others,  not  to  me, 
to  determine.  I  would  just  say,  that  I  have  not  so  learned  Mat- 
thew xviii.  15 — 17.  I  have  no  reason  to  dread  a  trial  or  its  result. 
I  mourn  only  that  your  time  and  mine,  and  that  perhaps  of  some 
hundreds  of  others,  should  betaken  from  the  direct  work  of  saving 


VI  INTRODUCTION. 

men,  and  wasted  in  irritating  strifes  and  contentions.  On  otherg, 
however,  not  on  myself,  will  be  the  responsibility. 

fn  reo^ard  to  the  "postulate"  in  your  letter,  that  I  "would 
■waive  the  constitutional  right  of  ten  days,"  &,c.,  I  have  only  to 
say,  that  if  any  man  feel  it  his  duty  to  arraign  me  before  my  Pres- 
bytery, I  presume  it  would  be  best  in  the  end,  and  most  satisfac- 
tory to  all  parties  concerned,  that  the  principles  and  rules  of  the 
bojk  of  discipline  be  formally  adhered  to,  and  that  it  is  not  wy  pur- 
pose to  make  any  further  concessions. 

As  I  have  no  acquaintance  with  the  gentleman  whom  yon  refer 
to  in  Market  street;  as  he  has  given  me  no  occasion  to  address  a 
letter  to  him ;  and  as  it  is  evidently  not  necessary  that  our  corres- 
pondence on  the  subject  should  be  conducted,  like  that  of  duellists, 
through  the  intervention  of  "  a  friend,''  I  thought  it  best  not  to 
address  him,  unless  he  shall  make  it  proper,  but  to  answer  your- 
self without  delay.  I  am  yours,  &c 

Rev.  G.  Junkin,  D.  D,  ALBERT  BARNES. 

On  the  I8th  I  forwai-ded,  through  Mr.  Steel,  a  letter,  as  follows : 

To  the  Rev.  Moderator  and  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 

Brethren. — To  you  belongs  the  solemn  and  responsible  duty 
*^'of  condemning  erroneous  opinions  which  injure  the  purity  and 
peace  of  the  Church — of  removing  and  judging  minister's- — of 
watching  over  the  personal  and  professional  conduct  of  all  your 
members," 

Now  ono  of  your  members  has,  as  appears  to  me,  published  in 
a  recent  work,  certain  erroneous  opinions,  of  a  dangerous  tendency 
to  the  peace  and  purity  of  the  Church,  and  to  the  souls  of  its  mem- 
bers. In  that  publication  he  has  observed,  "he  who  holds  an  opi- 
nion oji  the  subject  of  religion,  will  not  be  ashamed  to  avow  it," 
As,  therefore,  he  appears  willing  to  let  his  opinions  be  known,  and 
to  abide  their  consequences,  and  as  to  me  they  appear  dan- 
gerous, (in  the  absence  of  a  more  suitable  advocate  of  the  opposite 
truths)  I  ask  of  your  Reverend  body  the  privilege  of  preferring 
Charges  against  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes. 

As  I  have  stated  in  a  letter  to  that  brother^  "the  object  is  peace, 
through  UNION  in  the  truth  ;  and  I  hope  the  God  of  truth  and 
peace  will  direct  us  to  a  happy  issue.  Most  conscientiously  do  I 
believe  that  you  have  fallen  into  dangerous  error,  I  feel  that  your 
doctrine  shakes  the  foundation  of  my  hope  for  eternity.  If  it  be 
true,  then  I  cannot '  read  my  title  clear,  to  mansions  in  the  skies.' 

Around  the  discussion  of  a  subject  so  solenm,  I  "cannot  doubt, 
the  Son  of  God  will  throw  a  hallowed  influence,  which  will  call 
up  feelings  very  different  from  those  that  too  often  agitate  eccle- 
siastical bodies,  when  principles  of  minor  consequence  acquire  ex- 
citing power  from  adventitious  circumstances.  " 

I  have  also  stated  in  that  letter,  the  opinion"  that  peace  and  union 
in  ev&ngelical  efforts  cannot  take  place  so  long  as  these  important 
.doctrinal  points  remain  unsettled."  Hence  this  measure.  It  is  de- 
signed to  produce  a  legal  decision,  and  put  an  end  to  the  distractions 


INTRODUCTION.  vii 

consequent  upon  present  fluctuations.  I  do  therefore  piay  and  be- 
seech the  Presbytery  to  take  order  in  the  premises,  and  to  facilitate 
the  issue  with  the  least  possible  delay.  I  have  no  witnesses  to  cite 
but  brother  Barnes  himself,  and  shall  be  confined  to  his  testimonv 
contained  in  his  Notes  on  Romans.  These  are  referred  to  in  part 
in  connexion  with  the  charoes,  and  other  portions  will  be  read  on 
the  trial  for  further  proof  and  illustration.  Your  brother  in  the 
Lord,  GEORGE  JUNKIN. 

This  letter  brother  Steel  was  requested  not  to  hand  over  to  the 
Presbytery,  provided  brother  Barnes  would  accede  to  my  proposi- 
tion of  an  amicable  suit,  by  waiving-  his  right  often  days  after  the 
tabling  of  charges,  givmg-  him,  however,  that  much  time  before 
trial ;  and  in  case  he  would  so  agree,  to  hand  the  charges  therein 
specified  to  him;  but  if  he,  Mr.  Barnes,  would  not  so  agree,  then 
to  lay  the  letter  and  charges  before  the  Presbytery. 

Here  it  is  proper  to  remark,  that  my  letter  to  Mr.  Barnes  was 
written  and  mailed  on  Monday,  the  IBth.     He  received  it,  and 
wrote  his  answer  on  the  18th ;  the  answer,  however,  was  not 
mailed  until  Saturday,  the  21st:  meanwhile,  the  Presbytery  met, 
(on  Friday):  brother  Steel  called  at  Mr.  McKeen's,  where  brother 
Barnes  had  been  requested  to  leave  his  answer  to  me,  and  not 
finding  any,  attended  the  special  meeting  of  Presbytery.     They 
resolved  tj  hold  their  stated  meeting— when  alone  any  and  every 
business  can  come  up — on  Monday,  the  23d;  so  that  it  was  per- 
fectly impossible  I  could  know  of  the  meeting  and  be  there.     Let 
me  here  ask,  Why  did  Mr.  Barnes  hold  his  answer  to  me  from 
Wednesday  until  Saturday,  so  that  it  could  not  reach  me  until 
Monday?     And  why  d\d  he  not  drop  it  at  Mr.  McKeen's,  142 
Market  street?     Did  he  wish  to  keep  me  ignorant  of  his  decision 
as  to  the  "postulates,"  until  it  would  be  too  late  for  me  to  meet 
the  Presbytery!     Did  he  suspect  that  if  he  should  leave  his  an- 
swer where  1  requested,  it  might  enable  brother  Steel,  or  some 
one  else,  to  meet  the  Presbytery,  and  present  the  charges?  Why 
did  the  Presbytery,  on  Friday,  change  their  stated  meeting  until 
Monday?     Did   they  wish  to  throw  out  the  charges,  of  which 
brother  Barnes  had  intimation?     These  queries  are  important,  as 
they  direct  the  reader's  mind  to  the  evidence  of  a  disposition  to 
shun  a  trial.     "Charity  thinketh  no  evil:"  she,  however,  " re- 
joiceth  in  the  truth." 

Let  us  proceed  with  tiie  narrative.  On  Monday,  23d,  the  Second 
Presbytery  met,  and  Mr.  Steel  presented  my  letter  above  with  the 
charges,  of  v;hich  Mr.  Barnes  then  obtained  a  copy.  This  letter 
produced  some  sensation,  and  drew  forth  some  unkind  remarks 
and  insinuations.  There  was  secret  collusion — there  had  been  a 
caucus,  and  the  proposed  prosecutor  was  but  the  loolofthnt  caucus — 
preconcert  there  surely  must  have  been — Dr.  .Tunkin  could  not 
prosecute,  for  he  had  signed  the  Act  and  Testiinon}'^,  and  could  not 
acknowledge  the  legality  of  this  court — whv  was  he  not  present 

A  '^  '- 


yiii  INTRODUCTION. 

in  person?  &c.  &c.  Thoy  were  as<5nretl  tliat  the  suspicion  of  a 
conspiracy  was  as  groundless  as  it  was  unkind— that  Or.  .Tunkin 
liad  not  read  the  "  Notes"  when  last  in  the  city— that  Ih^  only 
i)reconcert  was  the  arrangement,  hy  which  an  opportunity  vva^  se- 
cured of  presenting  these  charges— that  the  reason  why  he  was 
not  here  is  ohvious;  vou  have  tixed  the  time  so  tliat  he  could  not 
possibly  know  of  your  meeting;  hut  let  a  time  be  appointed  for 
the  trial,  and  he  will  attend,  &c.  &.c. 

The  result  was  the  adoption  of  the  following  minute,  of  which 
oiticial  notice  was  communicated  thus: 

>>  To  the  Rev.  George  .Tunkin,  D.  D. 
*'  Extract  from  the  minutes  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Phila- 
delphia. 

"  In  Presbytery,  March  23d,  183.5.  A  letter  was  received  from 
the  Rev.  Robert  Steel,  purporting  to  have  been  addressed  by  the 
Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.  D.,  of  Easton,  Penn.,  to  this  Presbytery, 
which  was  read. 

"  After  recess  the  Presbytery  resumed  the  consideration  of  Dr. 
Junkin's  letter;  whereupon  it  was 

."  Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  cannot  regard  any  letter  from 
an  absent  person,  as  aufficient  to  constitute  the  commencement  of 
a  process  against  a  gospel  ministc;'. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  said  letter  be  preserved  on  the  files  of  this 
judicatory. 

"Ordered,  That  the  Stated  Clerk  send  the  Rev.  Dr.  Junkin  an 
attested  copy  of  the  minutes  in  the  case  of  his  letter. 
'•Attest.  THOiM AS  EUSTACE, 

>♦  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelpliio," 

Appended  to  this  was  a  private  note,  which.  I  here  record  with 
great  pleasure. 

"  Brother  Junkin  will  perceive  that  official  duty  has  made  the 
accompanying  communication  necessary  on  my  part.  I  deeply 
regret  that  your  sense  of  duty  has  made  you  think  this  step  ne- 
cessary, but  would  desire  to  cherish  the  best  feelings  toward  you 
personally,  and  have  those  feelings  reciprocated.  Praying  that 
all  miy  bo  overruled  for  the  good  of  the  church  purchased  with 
blood,  and  with  the  best  wishes  for  you  and  yours, 
I  remain  yours  truly. 

THOMAS  EUSTACE.*' 

Here  again,  let  it  be  remembered,  is  evidence  of  reluctance — 
strong  reluctance  to  entering  upon  the  trial.  The  Presbytery,  as 
such,  and  Mr.  Barnes  and  many  others  individually  did  manifest 
no  little  disinclination,  and  display  no  little  ingenuity  to  avoid  a 
trial.  There  is  moreover  some  inaccuracy  in  their  minute.  The 
letter  addressed  to  them  did  T\ot  purport  to  be  from  me.  It  was 
from  me,  and  had  my  name  appended  to  it  in  the  ordinary  manner. 
It  was  not  a  letter  from  Mr.  Steel,  but  only  through  his  hands. 


INTRODUCTION.  iX 

The  Presbytery  did  not,  as  Mr.  Steel  on  my  behalf  requested 
them  to  do,  fix  a  day  for  meeting  on  the  business,  but  adjourned 
to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  Moderator.  Thus  it  was  made  practi- 
cable to  come  together  from  time  to  time,  on  short  notice  privately 
given  by  the  Moderator,  and  to  transact  their  necessary  and  or- 
dinary business,  without  its  being  possible  for  me  to  know. 

Believing  then,  as  I  do  to  this  hour,  that  the  design  was  to 
thwart  my  purpose,  to  evade  a  trial,  and  prevent  a  decision  of  the 
doctrinal  questions,  I  determined  to  prevent  its  accomplishment, 
by  taking  a  complaint,  which  "  brings  the  whole  proceedings"  up 
to  the  superior  judicatory :  and  for  aught  we  can  yet  see,  it  might 
have  been  as  well,  had  it  gone  up  thus  to  the  General  Asseuibly. 

The  following  paper  was  therefore  addressed  to  the  Moderator. 

"  To  the  Rev.  Moderator  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia : 

"  Rev.  Sir, 

"  I  hereby  give  constitutional  notice,  that  I  intend  to  cowplain 
to  the  next  General  Assembly  against  the  proceedings  of  the  Se^ 
cond  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  relation  to  the  charges  which 
I  preferred  against  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes — for  the  toiiowing 
reasons :  viz. 

"  1.  Because  the  reason  alleged  for  not  regarding  my  charges 
as  sufficient  to  constitute  the  commencement  of  process  against 
a  gospel  minister  ;  viz.  that  they  [the  charges]  were  contained  in 
a  letter  and  presented  in  my  absence — has  no  foundation  in  the 
constitution  of  the  Church.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline from  which  such  a  reason  can  fairly  be  inferred,  but  the 
contrary.  The  Book  says,  "  they  must  be  reduced  to  writing." 
p.  401. 

"  2,  Because  the  Presbytery  have  given  me  no  notice  when 
they  will  again  meet,  that  I  may  appear  before  them  ;  but  although 
they  were  respectfully  asked  to  appoint  a  day,  they  adjourned  to 
meet  at  the  call  of  the  Moderator,  thus  precluding  the  possibility 
of  my  being  present. 

"  3.  Because,  although  they  retained  and  filed  the  charges, 
they  have  virtually  and  substantially  refused  to  permit  Mr.  Barnes 
to  be  tried  on  them. 

"  4.  Because  such  virtual  refusal  is  a  violation  of  the  constitution, 
which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery  "  to  condemn  errone- 
ous opinions,"  p.  359;  and  which  implies,  p.  401,  that  when 
"some  person  or  persons — undertake  to  make  out  the  charges" — 
and  "  to  reduce  them  to  writing,"  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery  is 
to  afford  a  fair,  open  and  candid  trial. 

"5.  Because  such  virtual  refusal  is  directly  in  opposition  to  the 
repeated  injunction  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  which  has  said, 
Minutes  p.  26,  "and  should  any  already  in  office,  be  known  to  be 
fundamentally  erroneous  in  doctrine,  it  is  not  only  the  privilege, 
but  the  duty  of  Presbyteries,  constitutionally  to  arraign,  condemn 
and  depose  them."  And  again,  "  Our  excellent  constitution  makes 
ample  provision  for  redressing  all 'such  grievances;  and  this  As- 


X  INTRODUCTION. 

sembly  enjoins,  in  nil  cases,  a  faithful  compliance,  in  meekness 
and  biutluTly  love,  with  its  reciuiriitions."  Again,  •' the  tair  and 
unquestionable  mode  of  ))rocedure,  is,  if  the  author  [of  a  book 
deemed  heretical,]  be  alive,  and  known  to  be  of  our  communion, 
to  institute  process  against  him;  and  give  him  a  lair  and  constitu- 
tional trial." 

"6.  Because,  according  to  Book,  chap.  V.  8,  the  Presbytery 
was  bound  ((jrthwitli  to  cite  the  parties,  (viz.  Mr.  Barnes  and  my- 
self) to  appear  [which  seems  to  imply  their  absence]  and  be  heard 
at  the  next  meeting,  which  meeting  shall  not  be  sooner  than  ten 
days  after  such  citation." 

Yours,  very  respectfully. 

GEO.  JUNKIN. 
Easlon,  March  28,  1835. 

Appended  to  this  was  a  kind  of  semi-official  note  to  the  Mode- 
rator, thus:  "  Brother  Grant  may  perhaps  have  seen  the  complaint 
on  the  enclosed  half  sheet  before.  Since  writing  that  copy  [it  was 
addressed  to  brother  Eustace,  I  not  knowing,  when  it  was  written, 
who  was  Moderator,]  I  have  learned  that  you  are  Moderator  of  the 
Second  Presbytery,  and  looking  at  the  copy  hastily  taken,  I  am 
apprehensive  I  neglected  to  date  the  one  sont  to  brother  Eustace. 
To  obviate  all  doubt  and  make  the  thing  constitutionally  safe,  I 
address  you  directly. 

May  I  not  hope  that  the  Presbytery  will  throw  no  obstacle  in 
the  way  7  Brother  Barnes  says  "  I  have  no  reason  to  dread  a 
trial  or  its  result.  I  mourn  only  that  your  time  and  mine,  and  that 
perhaps  of  some  hundreds  of  others  should  be  taken  from  the 
direct  work  of  saving  men." 

Now,  my  dear  brother,  will  not  the  true  time-savino'  expedient 
here  be,  to  come  right  up  to  the  point "?  Will  not  putting  off  and 
standing  upon  doubtful  points  of  order,  be  the  very  way  to  make 
a  protracted  and  a  perplexing  business  of  if?  My  deliberate 
opinion  is,  that  with  the  right  spirit,  the  whole  matter  may  pass 
through  in  a  single  day.  Assuredly  all  I  mean  to  read  and  say  on 
the  trial,  if  permitted  to  take  my  course,  will  not  exceed  three 
hours.*  Should  you  call  a  meeting  about  the  7t.h  April,  I  will 
have  all  the  charges  written  out,  and  the  testimony  adduced  in 
their  support  transcribed  from  the  book,  and  lay  a  copy  on  your 
table,  so  that  your  clerk  will  have  no  trouble  writing  it,  and  you 
no  delay.  Brother  Barnes  surely  needs  no  time  almost  to  prepare. 
The  whole  testimony  is  already  in  his  mind.  He  says,  "  On  these 
Notes  I  have  bestowed  many  an  anxious,  a  prayerful,  and  a  plea- 
sant hour."   He  assuredly  has  not  to  labour,  as  I  liave,  in  arriving 

*  Noto,  after  having  spent  fourteen  hours  speaking  in  Presbytery  and 
six  in  Synod,  I  am  of  the  same  opinion.  Had  the  case  been  met  at  first 
and  promptly,  I  still  think  a  single  day  would  have  finished  in  Presby- 
tery ;  so  marvellously  does  delay  and  discussion  extend  a  matter. 


INTRODUCTION,  XI 

at  their  meaning-,  a«  a  preparation  to  its  discussion.  He  has  not 
liis  opinions  to  form.  He  has  counted  the  cost.  He  believes  the 
doctrines  he  has  taught  to  be  truth.  If  he  and  the  Presbytery, 
after  the  proposed  examination,  shall  still  be  of  that  opinion,  I  am 
sure  they  will  say  so.  I  may  misunderstand  his  language.  Let 
its  true  meaning  appear.  Can  the  brethren  of  the  Presbytery 
give  a  good  reason  why  the  trial  should  not  go  on  forthwith,  ac- 
cording to  the  book  1  Of  course,  your  humble  servant  thinks  not. 
Should  a  meeting  be  appointed  for  the  trial,  as  above  requested, 
you  will  let  me  know.  Or  should  it  be  thought  necessary  to  have 
me  present  before  the  charges  will  be  admitted  to  lie,  let  me  know. 
Only  remember,  our  public  examinations,  &c.  &c.,  are  on  Monday, 
Tuesday,  and  Wednesday  of  next  week.  For  my  presence,  1 
must  confess,  I  see  no  colour  of  reason  ;  if  obliged  to  go  1  shall 
feel  that  I  am  put  to  trouble  and  expense,  without  necessity  and 
■without  law  ;  yet  I  will  go  any  time  after  Thursday  next. 

"  Now  may  I  not  hope  Mr.  Grant's  influence  will  go  to  gratify 
my  wishes  and  meet  my  sense  of  duty  1     Allow  me  to  add,  when 
I  began  this  note,  it  was  designed  to  be  private.  It  may  be  viewed 
■as  almost  semi-official.     Its  substance  seems  so  to  require. 
Very  respectfullv,  your  brother  in  the  Lord, 

GEOEGE  JUJNKIN." 

This  complainl;  was  not  carried  to  the  Assembly,  because  the 
ground  of  it  was  removed  by  the  Presbytery's  opening  the  jdoor 
for  trial.  In  my  note  accompanying  it,  as  first  sent  to  brother 
Eustace,  on  the  26lh,  I  had  observed  '*  should  the  spirit  of  my 
letters  to  brother  Barnes  and  to  the  Presbytery  be  fairly  met,  then 
you  will  call  a  meeting  to  try  the  case-^say  between  the  second 
-and  tenth  of  April." 

On  the  30th  March  I  received  the  following  i 

''Philadelphia,  March  28,  X835, 
"  To  the  Rev.  George  Junkin,  D.  D. 
^'  Dear  Brother, 

"  I  have  been  desired  officially  to  inform  you  that  the  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia  will  meet  by  adjournment  at  the  call 
of  the  Moderator  on  Thursday  the  second  day  of  April,  1835,  at 
nine  o'clock,  A.  M.  in  the  Lecture  Room  of  the  First  Presbyterian 
Church  on  Washington  Square:  this  being  an  adjourned  meeting. 
Presbytery  is  competent  to  the  transaction  of  any  business  that 
mav  come  before  them, 

"  Attest.  THOMAS  EUSTACE, 

Stated  Clerk-'* 

On  the  opposite  page  was  the  following  private  note : 

"  Dear  Brother, 
"  You  will  see  by  the  above,  that  your  wish  has  been  promptly 
complied  with.     I  believe  there  is  no  desire  to  shrink  frorn  an  in- 
vestigation on  the  part  of  Mr.  Barnes-or  the  Presbvtery. 

"  Yours  truly,  THOMAS  EUSTACE.** 


XII  INTRODUCTION. 

Thus,  although  I  had  written  "between  tlie 2(1  and  lOlh  April,'* 
and  stated  to  the  Moderator,  "  Only  remember  our  |)ub]ic  exan»i- 
nations,  &.c.  <liLC.,  are  on  Monday,  Tuesday,  and  Wednesday  of 
next  week,"  and  "any  time  after  Thursday^  I  could  attend  ;  the 
meeting  was  appointed  on  the  2d,  (Thursday)  at  9  o'clock,  A.  M. 
so  rendering  it  imperative  on  me  to  travel  great  part  of  the  night 
or  to  afford  opportunity  to  fail  in  procuring  a  trial. 

The  reader  will  please  to  look  at  these  facts,  and  ask  himself 
how  far  the  apprehension  of  a  complaint  operated  in  procm-ing 
this  prompt  meeting  of  my  wishes.  Would  a  hearing  have  beea 
afforded,  if  it  could  have  been  avoided  ] 

Let  us  follow  the  thread  of  history.  After  finishing  my  labours 
in  the  examinations,  on  Wednesday  the  1st  April  1  sot  out,  and 
by  travelling  in  the  night  was  enabled  to  be  in  Piiiladelphia  about 
9  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  2d,  and  about  fifteen  minutes 
after  9,  entered  the  Lecture  Room.  At  that  moment  the  clerk 
was  reading  the  complaint  above,  although  the  minutes  had  not 
yet  been  read.  After  the  reading  was  over,  I  and  some  otiiers 
were  kindly  invited  to  seats  as  corresponding  members.  The  Pres- 
bytery attended  to  various  business,  at  every  hiatus  in  which  I 
looked  for  an  introduction  of  my  own.  But  finally,  about  five 
o'clock  P.  M.  seeing  no  disposition  in  the  house  to  take  it  up,  I 
invited  the  Presbytery's  attention  to  it  myself— stated,  that  as  T 
had  tabled  charges  and  had  received  official  notice  that  the  Pres- 
bytery were  to  meet  to  day,  and  as  the  ten  days  stay  were  up,  I 
had  reason  to  suppose  the  trial  would  now  proceed.  Dr.  Ely  said 
there  was  no  authoritative  notice  issued — if  the  clerk  had  sent 
such  a  paper,  it  was  from  not  knowing  his  duty.  I  then  read 
the  letter  of  the  clerk;  but  was  assured  it  was  not  designed 
as  a  citation,  as  the  Presbytery  had  no  charges  before  them — 
was  asked  whether  I  had  now  any  charges  to  table.  I  replied  in 
the  negative — I  had  not  now  any  charges  to  table — they  were 
already  tabled,  and  more  than  this,  they  were  taken  possession  of 
by  the  court,  and  ordered  by  a  formal,  recorded  resolution  "  to  be 
preserved  on  the  files  of  this  judicatory,"  and  therefore  it  appeared 
strange  indeed,  to  ask  me  now,  for  a  paper  which  you  yourselves 
put  on  file  ten  days  ago.  Had  this  Presbytery  returned  the  paper 
to  me  by  the  hands  of  the  original  bearer  or  any  other,  it  would 
be  reasonable  to  ask  me  whether  I  would  now  present  cbartres. 
But  being  a  document  of  the  court,  I  presume  the  next  step  is  to 
proceed  in  the  use  of  it  according  to  its  obvious  intent  and  moaning. 

It  was  then  resolved,  to  ask  me  whether  I  now  proforreJ  these 
charges  and  designed  to  sustain  them. 

My  answer  was,  that  some  ten  days  since  I  had  presented 
them,  and  had  now  come  prepared  to  prove  their  truth  and  rele- 
vancy. 

Objection  was  here  made  to  the  charges,  because  the  term 
heresy  was  omitted.  This  was  introduced,  I  think,  by  brother 
Duffield,  then  sitting  as  a  corresponding  member.  Others  seemed 
pleased  with  it.  But  Dr.  Ely  made  some  judicious  remarks  which 


INTRODUCTION.  XIU 

appeared  to  satisfy  the  court  that  the  charges  were  sufficiently 
spr.cific.  The  prosecutor  alleged  his  reasons  for  the  omission, 
which  are  embodied  in  the  introduction  to  the  argument.(8). 
There  the  reader  will  find  them,  and  it  will  be  necessary  to  cor- 
rect a  remark  in  jelation  to  them.  It  seems  expressed,  that  the 
objection  was  not  thought  of  at  all  until  the  trial  was  about  ac- 
tually to  commence.  This  impression  from  reading  the  remark 
tliere  is  incorrect.  The  objection  was  raised — it  was  answered 
by  myself  and  by  Dr.  Ely,  and  appeared  then  to  have  been  satis- 
factorily refuted. 

A  resolution  was  then  passed,  to  admonish  m.e  of  the  conse- 
quences of  failure  to  prove  charges  brought  against  a  gospel  mi- 
nister. Whereupon  I  stood  up,  and  the  Moderator,  in  all  due 
form,  administered  the  admonition. 

A  resolution  was  next  passed,  to  put  a  copy  of  the  charges  into 
Mr.  Barnes'  hands.  He  stated  that  he  had,  by  permission  of  the 
clerk,  taken  a  copy,  when  the  paper  was  first  presented,  [March 
23d.]  He  was  then  asked  whether  he  was  ready  for  trial.  He 
made  a  short  address,  in  which  he  presented  some  difficulties. 
1.  The  rule.  Matt,  xviii.  15,  16,  "  If  thy  brother,"  &c.  has  not 
been  complied  with.  2.  Dr.  Junkin's  name  1  find  affixed  to  a 
document  which  I  hold  in  my  hand,  called  the  Act  and  Testimony, 
and  I  cannot  see  how  he  can  consistently  prosecute  before  a  court 
whose  constitutional  organization  he  calls  in  question,  &c.  3. 
The  case,  he  said,  wps  one  of  most  fearful  solemnity,  and  ought 
not  to  be  gone  through  hastily.  Great  deliberation  was  necessary. 
4.  His  health  had  been  in  such  a  state  as  to  compel  him  to  omit 
some  of  iiis  ordinary  duties — he  could  not,  without  unjustifiably 
pressing  himself,  be  prepared  in  less  than  ten  days,  nor  even 
then.  5.  At  the  end  of  the  ten  days,  Dr.  Ely  would  be  absent. 
Brother  Grant  and  brother  Patterson  would  be  absent.  Brother 
Dashiel  was  now  absent.  Without  any  unkind  insinuations 
against  other  members,  he  felt  unwilling  that  so  weighty  a  busi- 
ness shouU  be  determined  in  the  absence  of  these  four  influential 
members  ;  ami  he  felt  assured  the  other  brethren  would  not  like 
to  take  the  resjK^nsibility.  6.  Another  reason  was  that,  orderly, 
the  appeal,  for  he  had  no  thought  the  business  would  end  in 
Presbytery,  should  go  mthe  Synod  of  Delaware.  If  it  did  not,  the 
Assembly  would  probabl)'  send  it  back.  He  could  not  account 
for  the  haste  with  which  this  \\ung  was  pressed.  He  declined  im- 
mediate action,  and  claimed  posrdvely  the  ten  days,  and  hoped  the 
trial  would  be  postponed  until  June, 

In  reply  to  these  remarks,  the  proaecutor  said,  the  rule  Matt, 
xviii.  has  no  reference  to  such  a  case  as  ibis — it  relates  to  private, 
personal,  injuries  only.  Now,  there  is  no  private  or  personal 
offence  between  us — no  wounded  feelings — no  fault — it  is  a  pub- 
lic concern  that  cannot  possibly  be  hushed  up  by  private  explana- 
tion. 2,  That  his  signature  of  the  Act  and  Testimony  had  nothing 
to  do  with  this  case.     He  was  willing  to  prosecute  before  this 


XIV  INTRODUCTION^ 

court — that  was  a  sufficient  recognition  of  its  jurisdiction,  but  said 
nothing  about  its  organization,  A  foreigner  who  prosecutes  be- 
fore a  court  of  tiie  United  States,  only  acknowledges  its  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  case;  he  expresses  no  opinion  as  to  tiie  constitutional- 
ity or  correctness  of  its  original  organization.  3.  The  importance 
of  the  matter  was  a  reason  wliy  there  should  be  no  unnecessary 
delay.  The  object  wa^  peace  through  union  in  the  truth,  and 
delay  would  only  keep  the  community  the  longer  in  agitation — 
had  he  not  hoped  tho  case  would  be  brought  to  an  issue  before 
the  Assembly,  he  would  probably  not  have  brought  the  matter  up 
at  all;  certainly  not  at  this  time.  He  deprecated  a  whole  year 
of  paper  war,  which  must  follow,  if  the  case  is  not  now  tried. 

Mr.  Bradford  argued  strongly  in  favour  of  immediate  action — 
but  in  vain.  After  some  desultory  conversation  the  trial  was 
postponed  until  the  3()th  of  June,,  at  9  o'clock. 

In  th«  course  of  his  remarks,  Mr.  Barnes  had  read  from  the 
Assembly's  minutes  of  1824,  p.  219,  and  had  intimated  his  desig» 
to  avail  himself  of  an  incidental  observation  about  the  definiteness 
of  charges — alleging  it  to  be  a  constitutional  rule.  Lest  he  might 
do  so,  I  transmitted  by  mail  a  full  series  of  references  to  the  pages 
of  his  book  that  would  be  quoted,  and  of  the  parts  of  the  constitu- 
tion violated  by  them.  Thus  the  indictment  was  made  to  contain 
not  only  the  ofiences  charged,  but  also  the  proof  and  the  law  ;  yet 
it  appeared  to  me  that  he  and  some  of  the  court  thought  it  ought 
to  contain  the  argument  also.     This  letter  was  dated  April  11. 

Thus  we  have  the  history  of  this  case  to  the  period  when  the 
day  of  trial  was  appointed;  by  which  it  appears  that  Mr,  Barnes 
had  a  copy  of  the  cliarges  and  the  chief  references  to  proof,  three 
months  and  eight  days  before  trial ;  and  that  the  errors  alleged 
against  iiim  were  pointed  out.  the  law  laid  down,  and  the  proof 
presented  eighty  days  before  trial.  What  more  could  have  been 
done  to  favour  a  dcfeiice  ] 

Thus  we  have  traced  the  history  to  the  period  when  the  trial 
should  commence,  A  short  time  previously  to  this,  I  as\:ertaincd 
that  it  was  highly  probable  no  trial  would  take  place — that  (it 
was  believed,)- there  was  a  great  anxiety,  especially  since  the 
doings  of  the  last  Assembly,  and  the  triumph  of  Act  and  Testi- 
mony principles,  to  avoid  a  decision  altoge'^^er — that  to  this  end 
there  would  be  a  resurrection  of  the  objection  against  the  charges 
for  tl>e  omission  of  the  word  heresy ;  and  an  efibrt  to  dismiss  the 
cause  on  the  ground  of  informalitj — that  thus,  Mr,  Barnes  would 
stand  professedly  ready  for  tria-i,  and  eager  to  defend  himself;  the 
Presbytery  would  present  the  aspect  of  a  court,  open,  free,  and 
ready  to  proceed;  but  because  of  informality  utterly  hindered — 
that  this  informality,  bcmg  in  the  charges  themselves  as  drawn 
up  by  me,  the  fault  nnd  failure  would  lie  upon  myself — the  won- 
der was  with  some  mdustry  circulated,  that  a  man  of  Dr.  Junkin's 
acuteness  of  n>ind,  should  have  committed  so  great  a  blunder,  and 
it  was  charitdbly  imputed  to  inadvertence. 


1 


INTRODUCTION.  XV 

Now  of  all  this  I  was  apprised  before  the  Presbytery  met,  and 
was  fiot  at  all  surprised  when  the  facts  revealed  the  accuracy  of 
the  information  received  and  of  the  inferences  deduced  from  it. 
The  historic  detail  it  is  not  necessary  to  state.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
the  objection  was  renewed,  Mr.  Barnes  uniting  in  such  renewal, 
and  repeating  in  strong  language  his  reasons.  Great  complaints 
were  made  against  the  charges  for  want  of  precision — no  crime 
was  charged,  &c.  &c.  Especially  brother  Patterson  felt  it  ex- 
tremely hard  to  try  a  man  for  nothing — no  specific  charges  were 
made,  &.c.  <Sic.  But  if  brother  Barnes  was  willing  to  go  on  at 
such  a  great  disadvantage,  he  would  throw  no  obstacle  in  the 
way.  This  remark  threw  Mr.  Barnes  into  a  great  strait.  It  was 
manifest  Mr.  Patterson  iiad  not  seen  the  drift  of  it.  Mr.  Barnes, 
however,  felt  it,  and  experienced  no  little  difficulty  in  extricating 
himself  from  the  awkward  position  it  placed  him  in.  He  was 
thus  obliged  openly  to  say,  whether  or  not  he  was  willing  to  go 
on  to  meet  the  ciiarges  as  they  h^.d  been  drawn  up,  presented,  and 
accepted.  His  reply  was,  that  this  was  a  question  for  the  brethren 
of  the  Presbytery;  he  threw  himseJf  upon  them;  if  they  thought  it 
was  fair  and  just  for  him  to  be  tried  without  any  specific  charge 
of  crime  or  heresy — the  only  two  things,  he  contended,  for  which 
a  minister  could  be  tried,  he  was  ready.  These  remarks  were 
understood,  and  a  motion  was  ma'de  by  Mr.  Patterson  to  permit 
the  prosecutor  to  take  back  his  charges  and  amend  them,  or  other- 
wise the  Presbytery  vvould  not  go  on  to  the  trial ;  this  motion  was 
carried;  and  upon  being  requested  to  comply,  I  declined,  know- 
ing that  then  it  would  be  a  new  bill,  and  Mr.  Barnes  would  be 
entitled  to  his  ten  days  again ;  and  stating  at  the  same  time  my 
objections  against  the  term  ;  and  that,  in  my  view  of  its  meaning, 
the  things  charged  amounted  to  heresy;  yet,  doubtless,  others 
would  think  differently.  Thus  the  case  was  about  to  be  arrested, 
agreeably  to  my  previous  information.  The  Presbytery  were 
proceeding  to  other  business,  and  the  intended  prosecutor  rolled 
up  his  papers  to  take  leave  of  the  court.  Before  going  out,  how- 
ever, he  thought  he  would  propose  a  query,  and  wrote  it  on  a  slip 
of  paper,  viz.  After  charges  are  received,  admitted  to  lie,  and  a 
day  appointed  for  trial,  is  it  competent  for  the  court  to  compel  the 
prosecutor  to  change  his  bill  of  charges,  and  to  dismiss  the  case  if 
he  refuse]  He  handed  this  to  Dr.  Ely,  He  wrote  "  I  think  not," 
and  ha^ided  it  back.  It  was  handed  to  Mr.  Boardman — he  nodded 
assent ; — to  Mr.  Bradford — he  did  the  same,  and  in  a  few  minutes 
arose  and  invited  the  attention  of  the  Presbytery  to  the  position 
they  had  placed  themselves  and  brother  Barnes  in,  by  the  resolu- 
tion just  passed.  Dr.  Junkin,  some  three  months  since,  tabled 
charges — the  churches  know  it — the  world  knows  it.  He  has 
come  to  attend  to  the  prosecution  and  proof  of  them — he  is  just 
about  to  depart  without  a  trial — has  he  shrunk  from  them? — No, 
he  desires  to  go  on — yet  there  is  no  trial.  Why?  On  whom 
rests  the  blame  of  failure!    This  question  will  be  asked.     It  must 

B 


XVI  INTRODUCTIOM. 

be  answered.  Who  prevented  the  trial!  Not  Dr.  Junkin.  He 
stands  ready  to  prove,  as  he  says,  the  charges  he  made.  The  pub- 
lic will  think  either  the  Presbytery,  or  brother  Barnes,  or  both, 
arrested  the  trial.  Did  Mr.  Barnes,  it  will  be  asked,  demand  a 
trial,  and  the  Presbytery  refuse?  What  position  does  this  place 
the  Presbytery  in?  Or,  why  did  not  Mr.  Barnes  insist  on  a  triall 
Ought  any  man  to  consent  to  lie  under  the  imputations  of  these 
charges?  If  1  were  in  Mr.  Barnes'  place,  I  would  demand  a  trial; 
if  there  should  be  none,  I  should  dread  the  impressions  upon  the 
public  mind,  &c.  Dr.  Ely  presented  the  same  views,  and  the  re- 
sult was  a  resolution  to  reconsider,  and  a  farther  resolution  to  go 
on  with  the  trial. 

Thus,  after  spending  the  chief  part  of  a  day  in  attempts,  as  I 
then  thought,  and  still  think,  to  evade  a  trial,  and  the  odium  of  its 
evasion^  the  court  found  itself  on  Friday,  at  3  o'clock,  P.  M.  just 
where  it  started,  and  the  case  was  then  opened. 

After  the  arguments  of  the  parties  had  been  heard  at  length, 
and  the  court  nad,  upon  a  call  of  the  roll,  individually  expressed 
their  opinions,  so  that  the  result  was  known,  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  prepare  a  minute  containing  their  judgment,  the 
Presbytery  had  a  recess  until  3  o'clock,  when  other  business  was 
expected  to  come  up.  A  few  minutes  before  that  hour,  I  met  the 
Moderator  on  his  way  to  the  church,  at  the  North  West  corner  of 
Walnut  and  Sixth  streets,  and  observed  to  him  that  I  wanted  to 
be  certain  to  which  Synod  I  should  appeal — or,  in  other  words, 
whether  the  Synod  of  Delaware  would  ever  meet.  He  said  it 
never  would,  because  the  time  to  which  it  stood  adjourned  was 
later  than  that  to  which  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  stood  adjourned ; 
of  this  he  was  satisfied — for  father  Patterson  had  a  memorandum 
of  it  m  his  pocket-book.  I  also  proposed  the  query,  whether  it  would 
not  be  better,  on  all  accounts,  for  me  to  carry  the  appeal  direct  to 
the  Assembly?  In  the  affirmative  of  this  he  promptly  acquiesced 
with  me.  I  said,  no  doubt,  if  the  parties  and  the  Presbytery  agree 
harmoniously  in  carrying  it  direct  to  the  Assembly,  they  will  not 
remit  it  to  the  Synod.  In  this  we  perfectly  agreed,  and  he  pro- 
mised to  further  this  course  in  Presbytery. 

After  having  attended  to  some  business  I  went  up  to  the  house, 
and  upon  an  opportunity  presenting,  proposed  to  take  the  appeal 
direct  to  the  Assembly,  stating  the  reasons  as  in  the  conversation 
with  the  Moderator.  Whereupon,  immediately  Mr.  Barnes  arose 
and  objected — he  had  said  from  the  beginning,  and  he  now  repeat- 
ed, he  wished  this  business  to  take  the  regular  constitutional 
course — if  it  went  to  the  Assembly  in  any  other  way,  they  would 
probably  remand  it  to  tlie  Synod.  I  then  asked  to"^  be  informed 
whether  the  appeal  could  go  to  the  Synod  of  Delaware — would 
that  body  ever  meet  again  ?  To  this  inquiry  a  number  of  voices 
responded — No,  it  can't  meet — its  time  of  meeting  is  after  the 
time  to  vvhich  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  stands  adjourned,  and  of 
course  it  cannot  meet.     Then  said  T,  the  appeal  must  be  to  the 


INTRODUCTION.  XVll 

Synod  of  Philadelphia,  and  to  this  there  was  not  an  official,  for- 
mally expressed  assent — but  a  real,  well  understood  and  fully  ex- 
pressed and  general  assent.  In  this  part  of  the  narrative  I  am 
minute,  because  subsequent  events  require  it.  Brother  Barnes 
and  some  others  have  not  a  distinct  recollection.  My  memory  here 
is  transparent — its  conceptions  are  vivid — it  directs  me  to  the 
very  spot  where  Mr,  Barnes  sat,  when  I  made  the  proposition  to 
appeal  to  the  Assembly  and  the  inquiry  about  the  Synod  of  Dela- 
ware, viz.  OR  the  second  seat  to  the  right  of  the  Moderator,  and  a 
little  farther  off  than  the  middle  of  the  seat.  Accordingly  a  few 
days  after  I  prepared  my  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia. 
Confident  I  am,  neither  brother  Barnes,  nor  any  other  brother 
will  deny  the  accuracy  of  the  above  statement.  They  may  say 
"  I  have  no  distinct  recollection,"  which  doubtless  is  the  fact  of  the 
case,  but  which  is  no  proof.  Brother  Grant,  however,  will  not 
say  even  this :  his  recollection  of  the  above  circumstances  must 
be  secured  by  their  associations. 

Decision  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  done  in  Presbytery,  July  10,  A.  D.  1835. 
Extract  from  the  Minutes. 

The  Presbytery  having  heard  the  prosecutor  at  great  length,  in 
support  of  his  charges,  and  the  accused  in  defence  of  himself,  and 
having  duly  considered  the  testimony  submitted  in  the  case,  judge 
the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes  not  to  be  guilty  of  teaching  or  holding  any 
heresy  or  erroneous  doctrine,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  our 
Standards. 

1st.  Because  it  has  not  been  proved,  that  Mr.  Barnes  has  taught 
that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action.  He  has  taught,  in  the 
passages  cited,  that  men  are  not  compelled  by  any  physical  neces- 
sity, or  fatal  necessity  of  nature,  but  affirmed,  agreeably  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  ix.  sec.  1.,  that  they  are  voluntary 
agents  in  the  commission  of  sin. 

2.  Because  Mr.  Barnes  has  not  denied,  that  Adam  was  acquaint- 
ed with  his  existing  moral  relations,  but  has  taught  that  there  is 
no  reason  from  the  Mosaic  History  of  the  creation  and  of  the  life 
of  Adam,  to  believe,  either  that  he  possessed  all  the  scientific 
knowledge  attributed  to  him  by  the  Rabbins,  or  that  he  was  as 
well  acquainted  with  the  consequences  of  sin  before,  as  he  was 
after  the  fall. 

3.  Because  the  passages  cited  from  Mr.  Barnes'  Notes  on  the 
Romans,  teach  nothing  one  way  or  the  other  on  the  subject  of 
man's  ability  or  inability ;  nor  is  there  any  evidence  whatever, 
direct  or  implied,  that  he  has  affirmed  or  taught,  that  the  unre- 
generate  man  can  convert  himself  to  God.  He  has  indeed  taught, 
in  accordance  with  the  Bible  and  Standards,  that  the  sinner  acts 
most  voluntarily,  when  he  turns  to  God,  that  he  is  regenerated  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  and  that  his  turning  is  his  own  act.  But  he 
has  not  denied,  that  in  so  turning,  he  is  acted  on  and  efficiently 
determined  by  God,  the  Spirit;  the  contrary  he  has  taught. 


XV  111  IXTRODXJCTION. 

4.  Because  Mr.  Barnrs  lias  in  exact  accordance  with  our  Stand- 
ards, and  the  Bible,  tauj^ht  that  savincr  faith  is  in  every  case,  an 
influential  act  of  the  mind.  In  denying-  that  it  is  a  principle^  he 
does  not  mean  that  a  Christian  is  not  a  man  of  principle,  nor 
his  reliirion  that  of  principle,  nor  that  the  mind  of  the  sinner, 
who  accredits  the  testimony  of  God,  is  brought  into  a  state 
in  which  it  readily  perceives  the  force  of  evidence  furnished 
in  that  testimony,  and  thus  may  be  said  to  be  a  habit  of 
mind;  but  simply,  that  saving  faith  is  not  any  thing-  indepen- 
dent of  the  actings  of  the  mind,  nor  any  created  or  conceiv- 
able essence  of  the  soul,  back  of  the  act  of  believing.  This  ex- 
ercise of  mind  and  heart,  the  Apostle  says,  was  imputed  to  Abra- 
ham for  righteousness.  Mr.  Barnes  has  affirmed  the  same,  but 
has  not  taught,  in  so  doing,  that  faith  is  regarded  as  a  justifying 
righteousness.  He  has,  on  the  contrary,  explicitly  affirmed,  that 
the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  the  only  ground  of  the  justification 
of  the  sinner  before  God. 

5.  Because,  while  Mr.  Barnes  has  preferred  not  to  use  certain 
theological  technicalities,  such  as  Covenant  of  Works,  Federal 
Headship,  Representation,  &c.,  and  for  reasons  which  he  has  as- 
signed, he  has  not  denied  the  facts  in  the  case,  as  made  known  to 
our  faith  in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  The  Confession  of  Faith  speaks 
of  the  Covenant  of  Works,  as  a  commandment,  or  the  law  of  God 
given  to  man,  of  obedience  to  which,  abstinence  from  the  fruit  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge,  was  the  test  and  evidence.  It  does  not 
intimate,  that  independent  of  and  subsequent  to  the  enactment  of 
the  moral  law,  God  entered  into  a  special  compact  with  man, 
about  his  obedience,  but  that  He  was  pleased  to  promise  eternal 
life,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  on  condition  of 
Adam's  obedience  to  that  law,  to  be  proved  by  his  observance  of 
the  prohibition  from  the  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge.  To  illus- 
trate the  great,  prime,  elementary  transaction  of  God  with  our 
race,  as  its  moral  governor,  upon  strict  principles  of  commercial 
iaw,  Mr.  Barnes  has  objected,  as  being  inconsistent  with  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Divine  Being,  and  the  nature  of  moral  relations. 
According  to  the  strict  idea  of  a  covenant,  he  conceives  that  the 
parties,  previously  to  its  being  made,  are  at  liberty  to  decline  the 
agreement,  and  because  our  first  parents  were  not  at  such  liberty 
to  object  against  or  decline  that  constitution  which  God  ordained 
with  them,  as  the  Head  and  Representative  of  our  race,  he  thinks 
that  the  Confession  of  Faith,  by  using  the  words  law  and  com- 
mandment as  synonymous  with  covenant,  did  not  mean  to  teach, 
tliat  the  parallel  is  complete  between  the  moral  law,  as  originally 
given  by  God  to  our  first  parents,  and  a  covenant  in  the  strict 
meaning  of  the  word,  but  has  left  it  optional,  whether  to  explain 
it  by  the  one  phrase  or  the  other.  Mr.  Barnes  has  preferred  ex- 
plaining it  as  a  law  or  commandment;  but  he  has  denied  that  our 
first  parents  were  tried  for  themselves  and  for  the  race,  see  page 
122.  He  has  denied  that  in  the  strict  legal  sense  of  the  term, 
Adam  was  the  representative  of  the  race,  because  he  conceives 


INTRODUCTION.  XlX 

the  idea  of  consent  or  appointment  by  those  represented,  as  always 
implied  in  such  representation.  Yet  has  he  not  denied,  that  in  a 
more  vague  and  general  sense,  our  first  parents  were  the  repre- 
sentatives of  their  race;  but  he  has  objected  to  attempts  to  explain 
the  nature  and  character  of  the  Divine  transactions  with  Adam, 
which  are  not  made  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  but 
found  only  in  human  treatises  on  systematic  Theoloj^y,  as  mere 
philosophical  theories,  suggested  by  the  forms  and  usages  of  com- 
mercial law  among  men,  for  the  purpose  of  explaining  those  facts 
in  the  moral  government  of  God,  which  God  himself  has  left  un- 
explained. In  so  doing,  M;.  Barnes  has  not  denied,  that  such  a 
connexion  was  establisiied  by  God  between  Adam  and  his  race, 
that,  in  consequence  of  his  sin,  they  are  subjected  to  the  same 
train  of  ills,  as  if  they  had  themselves  personally  been  the  trans- 
gressors. 

6.  Because  while  Mr.  Barnes  has  denied  that  the  sin  of  our  first 
parents  is  reckoned  or  accounted  in  the  sight  of  God,  as  the  crime 
of  their  descendants,  either  by  virtue  of  any  alleged  personal 
identity  between  them,  agreeably  to  the  views  of  some  old  CaJ- 
vinists,  or  by  virtue  of  such  a  legal  connexion  between  them,  that, 
on  the  principles  of  commercial  law,  that  is  reckoned  to  them, 
which  is  not  truly  and  properly  theirs,  and  for  which  they  are  per- 
sonally blame-worthy,  and  ill-deserving,  agreeably  to  the  views  of 
some  at  the  present  day,  he  has  not  taught  that  we  have  no  more 
to  do  with  the  sin  of  Adam,  than  with  the  sins  of  any  other  pa- 
rents, nor  that  our  relation  to  him  is  not  very  peculiar,  nor  that 
the  consequences  or  results  of  his  sin,  deeply  and  seriously  affect 
us. 

7.  Because  Mr,  Barnes  has  not  denied  that  we  suffer  many  and 
direful  ills,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  that  those  ills 
are  certain  and  universal,  growing  out  of  the  connexion  between 
Adam  and  his  race,  and  are  appointed  by  God,  as  a  wise,  just  and 
holy  mora^l  governor,  as  an  expression  of  the  evil  nature  and  ten- 
dency of  apostacy.  He  has  only  objected  to  the  use  of  the  words 
guilt  and  punishment,  according  to  certain  theological  definitions, 
which  by  not  implying  personal  criminality,  conflict  with  the  sense 
in  which  they  are  used  in  common  language — Guilt,  according  to 
Mr.  Barnes,  implying  obnoxiousness  to  punishment  because  of 
personal  blame  worthiness  of  crime;  aiid  punishment,  any  pain 
or  suffering  inflicted  on  a  person  for  this  crime  or  offence. 

8.  Because  the  prosecutor  did  not  attempt  to  show  in  what  the 
proper  penalty  of  the  law  consisted,  nor  whether  spiritual  and 
eternal  death  constituted  a  part  of  it,  nor  whether  the  Standards 
of  our  Church  teach  that  Christ  endured  the  identical  penalty  of 
the  law,  which  according  to  some  old  Calvinisticai  writers,  con- 
sisted in  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal  death ;  or  only  an  equi- 
valent anriount  of  suffering.  Mr.  Barnes  has  not  denied  that 
Christ  is  the  "  vicarious  substitute"  of  his  people,  nor  that  He  has 
"  purchased  pardon,"  but  has  explicitly  affirmed  and  taught  these 

B* 


XX  INTRODUCTION. 

thinj^s.  In  denying'  that  Christ  did  endure  the  penalty  of  the  law, 
he  has  explained  ijiniselt'  to  mean,  that  llenior.sc,  l^espair,  Cor- 
ruptioa,  and  otiier  things,  which  lie  supposed  to  be  implied  in  the 
idea  of  spiritual  deatii,  as  well  as  eternal  sufTerings,  all  of  which 
he  understands  to  be  a  part  of  the  proper  penalty  of  the  law,  were 
not  inflicted  on  Christ,  and  not  to  deny  that  his  sufferinfro  find 
death,  were  substituted  as  a  sacrifice,  to  satisfy  divine  justice, 
fully  equivalent  with  the  penalty  denounced  against  transgression. 

9.  Because  Mr.  Barnes  has  taught  nothing  in  regard  to  the 
active  obedience  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  from  his  passive;  so 
far  from  having  taught,  that  justificaiijn  is  simply  pardon — he  has 
taught  the  very  rever.se,  niamtaining  that  God  regards  and  treats 
the  sinner  who  believes  in  (^hrist,  as  if  he  were  righteous,  and 
that  solely  on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  irrespective  of 
any  good  deeds  or  desert  of  the  sinner  whatever. 

10  Because  the  evidence  submitted  on  the  part  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, in  respect  to  the  charges  of  erroneous  doctrine,  was  that  of 
inferences  drawn  from  Mr.  Barnes'  language,  which  in  the  judg- 
Kient  of  the  Presbytery,  were  not  legitimate,  but  which  even 
if  they  were,  ought  not,  and  cannot,  agreeably  to  the  decision  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  1824,  be  used  to  convict  of  heresy  or 
dangerous  error,  afTecting  the  foundation  of  a  sinner's  hope,  or 
the  Christian's  title  to  eternal  life. 

The  Presbytery  therefore  judge,  that  the  charges  have  not  been 
maintained,  and  ought  to  be  dismissed,  and  do  acquit  Mr.  Barnes 
of  having  taught  in  his  Notes  on  the  Romans,  any  dangerous  er- 
rors or  heresies,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  and  our  Standards. 
And  they  do  moreover  judge,  that  the  Christian  spirit  manifested 
by  the  prosecutor,  during  the  progress  of  the  trial,  renders  it  in- 
expedient to  inflict  any  censure  on  him,  and  the  Presbytery  would 
express  the  hope  that  the  result  of  all  will  be  to  promote  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  and  further  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

Attest,  THOMAS  EUSTACE, 

Stated  Clerk  of  Second  Presbytery  of  Phiadelphia. 

DR.  JUNKIN'S  APPEAL. 

Lofayplte  College,  Juhj  16/A,  1835. 
To  Rev.  John  L.  Grant,  Moderator,  and  to  the  Rev.  Second 
Presbytery  of  Philadelphia. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brethren, — You  are  hereby  officially  inft)rmed 
that  I  intend  to  appeal  to  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  at  its  next 
meeting  to  be  held  in  the  borough  of  York,  on  the  last  Wednesday 
of  October  next,  against  your  recent  decision  in  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  Albert  Barnes.  This  appeal  is  from  the  "  definitive  sentence." 
Its  general  ground  is  "a  manifestation  of  prejudice  in  the  case, 
and  mistake"  and  consequent  "injustice  in  the  decision." 

Allow  me,  before  proceeding  to  specify  the  reasons  which  shut 
me  up  to  the  belief  that  the  Court  was  prejudiced,  and  did  err  in 
judgment,  to  say  that  I  impeach  no  motives — I  charge  no  corrupt 


INTRODUCTION.  XXI 

prejudice;  no  intentional  mistake  or  error  upon  any  man.  Men 
do  often  err  under  the  purest  motives,  and  are  often  powerfully 
prejudiced,  whilst  perfectly  unconscious  of  it.  With  this  single 
remark,  I  proceed  to  detail  the  reasons  why  I  appeal  on  the  above 
named  grounds,  viz. 

1.  Because  the  Presbytery,  nearly  tliree  months  after  the  charges 
had  been  received,  and  ihe  day  fixed  for  trial,  attempted  to  con- 
strain the  prosecutor  to  change  them,  by  prefixing  the  general 
charge  of  heresy;  and  did  actually  pass  a  resolution  refusing  to 
hear  the  parties,  merely  because  this  term  was  absent;  and  upon 
the  prosecutor  saying,  in  answer  to  a  question  put  to  him,  that  in 
his  opinion,  the. errors  charged  amounted  to  heresy,  the  Presby- 
tery made  a  record  which  amounted  virtually  to  a  change  of  the 
indictment  to  a  general  charge  of  heresy.  The  prosecutor,  now 
appellant,  had  stated  his  objections  to  the  use  of  this  term.  First, 
It  is  a  vague  term,  not  defined,  in  our  books  ;  no  two,  perhaps  of 
the  Presbytery  themselves,  would  agree  in  what  constitutes  here- 
sy. Its  use  therefore  could  only  create  confusion  and  throw  a 
character  of  indefiniteness  around  charges  of  error,  which  he  had 
laboured  to  make  definite  and  precise.  Secondly,  This  term  is 
a  bugbear,  and  is  often  used  to  excite  popular  commotion  of  an 
unpleasant  character,  and  may  therefore  greatly  prejudice  the 
mind  against  the  one  who  accuses  another  of  error,  and  in  favour 
of  the  accused. 

Thus  the  Presbytery  manifested  favour  toward  Mr.  Barnes,  in 
giving  him  and  his  friends  the  opportunity  of  exciting  odium  against 
the  accuser,  by  allusions  and  references  to  persecution,  and  to 
"  the  inquisitorial  toils"  of  the  prosecutor.  Accordingly  this  last 
phraseology  was  actually  used  by  one  of  the  judges,  (Rev.  John 
Smith)  and  not  without  effect. 

Thus  also  the  Presbytery  changed  substantially  the  ground  and 
nature  of  the  prosecution,  and  led  themselves  into  error.  In  their 
final  verdict,  they  assumed  heresy  d.s  the  general  charge.  And  in 
giving  their  opinions,  some  members  had  their  eye  constantly  on 
that  fearful  term,  the  meaning  of  which  the  court  did  not  define. 
So  the  Rev.  Mr.  Barbour  opened  his  remarks — "I  never  can  give 
my  verdict,"  said  he,  "  that  brother  Barnes  has  been  guilty  of 
heresy.^''  And  again,  "  The  Confession  vvas  not  made  for  a  trap 
to  catch  heretics.'^ — And  more  of  the  same  kind.  So  the  Rev. 
John  Smith,  and  ihe  Rev.  N.  S.  Smith,  rung  the  changes  on  the 
word  heresy,  and  evidently  were  engrossed  with  that  undefined 
idea.  So  Elder  Hinckle  said,  "the  prosecutor  has  failed  in  es- 
tablishing the  charge  o^  heresy  against  the  defendant."  So  Elder 
Darrach,  "I  would  not  say  Mr.  Barnes  was  guilty  of  heresy. ''"' 
And  thus  the  court  was  carried  off  the  ground  of  the  charges,  and 
decided  on  a  case  not  before  them.  Heresy  with  many  is  some 
horrible  thing  for  which  a  uian  must  be  burnt.  Thus  lost  in  a 
term  undefined  and  undefinablo,  the  court,  as  appears  to  me,  erred 
ill  judgment.     They  shuddered  at  tlie  idea  of  burning  Mr.  Barnes. 

2.  Because  the  accused  was  not  called  upon  by  the  court  to  put 


XXII  INTRODI'CTION. 

in  a  plea  to  each  charge  specifically.  Dis.  V.  10.  "  The  chargea 
shall  be  read  to  him,  and  he  shall  be  called  upon  to  say  whether  he 
is  guilty  or  not."  Now  cases  may  occur,  wherein  an  accused 
person  may  plead  guilty  to  one  and  not  to  another  of  the  charges, 
and  unless  the  question  be  distinctly  put,  "do  you  admit  the  truth 
of  this  first  charge,  or  not  ]"  and  so  of  the  rest,  it  cannot  be  known 
what  the  plea  is;  and  if  no  special  plea  be  put  to  each  count  of 
the  indictment,  the  prosecutor  and  the  court  arc  put  to  unneces- 
sary trouble,  and  kept  in  ignorance  of  what  they  are  called  upon 
to  do;  whether  to  prove  the  truth,  or  only  the  relevancy  of  the 
charge.  This  violation  of  rule  is  the  more  censurable,  because  a 
Presbytery  is  a  court  of  conscience,  and  every  person  arraigned 
ought  to  have  it  put  to  his  conscience  to  say  whether  the  things 
charged  are  true  or  not.  But  the  12th  section  settles  this  question. 
■"If  the  minister,  when  he  appears,  will  not  confess,  but  denies  the 
facts  alleged  against  him,"  &c.  Clearly  this  contemplates  an  ex- 
plicit acknowledgment  or  denial  of  the  things  charged.  Now 
Mr.  Barnes,  in  the  plea  he  put  in,  admitted  some  of  the  charges, 
and  denied  others;  but  the  Presbytery  did  not  require  him  to 
specify  which  he  admitted,  and  which  he  denied  ;  so  that  the  plea 
amounted  to  nothing.  He  says,  "  I  neither  have  taught,  nor  do  I 
teach  any  thing,  according  to  my  best  judgment,  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God  ;  nor  do  I  deny  any  truths  taught  in  the  word  of  God, 
as  is  alleged  that  I  do  in  the  indictment  now  before  the  Presby- 
tery," Can  any  candid  man  read  this  plea  against  charges  of 
holding  doctrines  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  Confession  of 
Faith,  without  feeling  that  the  accused  admits  teaching  doctrines 
contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faitiil  And  is  this  plea  any  thing 
more  than  any  errorist  in  every  age  has  put  in?  Who  does  not 
know  that  all  errorists  that  have  troubled  the  Church,  and  do  trou- 
ble her,  always  profess  to  found  their  doctrines  on  the  Bible  1  In  re- 
ference to  the  Confession  of  Faith  there  is  absolutely  no  plea  at  all. 
The  prosecutor  has  always  been  of  opinion,  and  by  the  admissions 
of  Mr.  Barnes,  now  more  than  ever,  that  had  he  been  put  to  a  spe- 
cial plea,  he  would  have  acknowledged  the  truth  of  at  least  a  ma- 
jority of  the  charges,  as  he  has  done  of  the  principal  ones,  so  far  as 
the  Standards  are  concerned;  and  would  have  justified  himself  on 
the  ground  of  Scripture.  Thus,  it  is  believed,  prejudice  was  mani- 
fested in  favour  of  the  accused.  For  by  this  course  he  was  left  to 
all  the  benefit  of  a  denial,  where  he  could  do  it  with  a  clear  con- 
science; whilst  he  had  all  the  advantage  of  silence,  where  he 
could  not  have  denied.  By  this,  too,  the  trial  was  greatly  pro- 
tracted. 

Thus,  also,  the  appellant  and  the  court  are  left  still  in  doubt 
whether  Mr,  Barnes  admits  or  denies  certain  points.  Dr.  Ely  in 
his  paper  said  Mr.  Barnes  included  Christ's  active  obedience  in  the 
matter  of  the  believer's  justification,  and  did  not  teach  that  justifi- 
cation is  simply  pardon.  On  the  contrary.  Rev.  Mr.  Patterson 
said  he  believed  Mr.  Barnes  held  the  common  doctrine  of  the  New 


INTRODUCTION.  KXltl 

England  divines,  and  the  doctrine  of  Dr.  Dwight;  which  is,  that 
justification  is  simply  and  only  pardon.  Thus  justice  in  this  state 
of  the  case  could  not  be  expected.  This  incipient  error  led  on  to 
others. 

3.  Another  reason  for  thinking  that  there  was  some  little  bias  in 
the  court,  is  the  high  estimate  in  which,  deservedly,  some  at  least 
of  the  members  held  Mr.  Barnes  as  to  talents,  and  his  congrega- 
tion as  to  respectability  and  influence.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  Presbytery  held  its  meetings  in  the  lecture  room  where 
the  accused  had  usually  met  his  people,  and  many  of  them  were 
present  during  the  trial.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  the  good 
brethren  should  not  be  insensibly  influenced.  Accordingly,  one  in 
closing  his  remarks  said,  "Never  let  me  be  found  condemning  a 
man  to  whom  God  has  given  such  mighty  powers  of  mind,  and  a 
congregation  so  dignified  and  influential." 

4.  My  fourth  reason  for  appealing  on  the  ground  of  prejudice 
leading  to  error,  is,  that  the  Presbytery  have  in  their  decision  en- 
dorsed some  of  Mr.  Barnes'  alleged  errors,  and  having  made  them 
their  own,  could  not  be  presumed  altogether  impartial  in  their 
judgment.  Ex.  gr.  "  This  exercise  of  mind  and  heart,"  (Abra- 
ham's) say  they,  "  the  Apostle  says  was  imputed  to  Abraham  for 
righteousness."  See  4th  reason.  And  again,  under  5th  reason, 
"It  (the  Confession  of  Faith)  does  not  intimate  that  independent 
of  and  subsequent  to  the  enactment  of  the  moral  law,  God  entered 
into  a  special  compact  with  man  about  his  obedience  ;  but  that  he 
was  pleased  to  promise  eternal  life,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for 
his  posterity,  on  condition  of  Adam's  obedience  to  that  law,  to  be 
proved  by  his  observance  of  the  prohibition  from  the  fruit  of  the 
tree  of  knowledge." 

Now,  on  the  contrary,  the  very  doctrine  of  the  Confession  and 
Catechism  is,  that  man  was  created  having  "the  law  of  God  writ- 
ten in  his  heart,"  and  "  when  God  had  created  man  he  entered 
into  a  covenant  of  life  with  him."  The  covenant  was  subsequent 
to  the  enactment  of  the  law.  Thus  the  Presbytery  sanctions  the 
error  charged,  and  therefore  may  well  be  supposed  favourable  to 
the  accused. 

5.  Because  on  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  charges,  it  is  very  difficult 
to  say  whether  the  Presbytery  admit,  as  Mr.  Barnes  did,  that  he 
denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Standards.  It  is  painfully  difficult  to 
know  what  their  decision  is  under  these  heads;  and  particularly 
on  the  7th,  they  certainly  do  not  tell  us  whether  Mr.  Barnes  de- 
nied or  acknowledged  the  doctrine  that  Adam's  posterity  are 
guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  Why- 
did  not  the  Presbytery  give  an  unequivocal  sentence  here?  On 
these  three  charges,  where  every  attentive  hearer  of  his  defence 
must  know  that  Mr.  Barnes  admitted  his  denial  and  rejection  of 
the  doctrine  of  our  Standards,  and  where  he  set  up  his  defence  on 
the  ground  of  Scripture  and  his  own  metaphysics,  in  opposition  to 
them,  I  am  constrained  to  think,  the  main  efforts  of  the  Presbytery 


XXIV  INTRODUCTION. 

have  been  expended  in  throwing  darkness  and  obscurity  around 
the  subject,  and  "  so  they  wrap  it  up." 

This  reason  I  may  extend  to  each  one  of  the  charges,  and  the 
Presbytery's  action  on  them. 

Three  questions  naturally  arose  on  each.  1.  Is  the  thing 
charged  proved  by  the  testimony  1  2.  Ts  it  contrary  to  the  Stand- 
ards .'  3.  Is  it  contrary  to  the  Bible?  Now  the  prosecutor 
humbly  conceives  he  had  a  right  to  a  decision  on  each  of  them. 
This  he  respectfully  requested  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Pres- 
bytery, but  was  refused. 

6.  Because  an  inaccurate  statement  in  the  8th  reason  of  the 
decision,  was,  perhaps,  partly  the  ground  of  said  decision,  viz : 
*'  Because  the  prosecutor  did  not  attempt  to  show  in  what  the 
proper  penalty  of  the  law  consisted."  Now  the  prosecutor  did 
show,  from  the  Confession  and  the  Bible,  that  the  proper  penalty 
of  the  law  consisted  in  death.  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die" — that  it 
consisted  in  the  curse — the  wrath  of  God — which  things  include 
sorrows,  anguish,  and  woes  unutterable,  inflicted  upon  the  Saviour 
by  the  righteous  judgment  of  God  the  Father,  because  his  own 
Son  bare  the  sins  of  the  people  (by  legal  imputation)  in  his  own 
body  on  the  tree. 

7.  Because  of  a  similar  inaccuracy  in  the  10th  reason,  viz:  that 
*'  the  evidence  submitted  on  the  part  of  the  prosecution,  was  that 
of  inferences  drawn  from  Mr.  Barnes'  language."  Now  the  ap- 
pellant humbly  conceives  that  he  submitted  the  language  itself  of 
Mr.  Barnes,  as  the  testimony  and  the  evidence  in  the  case.  He 
submitted  all  the  passages  read,  and  their  adjoining  contexts  re- 
spectively. These  were  the  evidence,  and  it  is  believed  they 
contain  proof. 

8.  Because  one  member  of  the  court,  at  least,  distinctly  rejected 
the  Standards  of  the  Church,  as  a  rule  of  judgment  in  the  case. 
He  said  the  Confession  had  been  twisted  into  a  wrong  place.  It 
was  not  a  trap  to  catch  heretics.  He  had  as  good  a  right  to  bring 
charges  against  a  man  for  holding  doctrines  contrary  lo  Ridgley's 
Body  of  Divinity,  and  the  Bible,  or  contrary  to  the  Christian  Al- 
manac, and  the  Bible,  as  the  present  prosecutor  had  to  charge  Mr. 
Barnes  with  holding  doctrines  contrary  to  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Bible.  It  is  true,  he  next  day  apologised,  by  saying  he 
did  not  mean  to  disparage  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But  then  his 
speech  was  at  least  partly  written.  It  was  deliberately  and  strongly 
expressed  ;  whereas  the  apology  was  obviously  a  lame  effort,  for 
popular  effect.  Now,  how  many  more  of  the  judges  were  of  this 
sentiment,  I  cannot  say.  I  believe,  however,  there  be  some  even 
newer  Presbyterians,  than  this  anti-confession  brother.  But  one 
thing  is  obvious,  viz.  that  such  doctrine  effectually  precludes  a 
fair  and  impartial  trial. 

9.  Because  the  Presbytery  took  Mr.  Barnes'  present  declara- 
tions as  expository  of  the  meaning  of  his  language  adduced  in 
proof.     I  think  this  will  be  evident  upon  a  simple  reading  of  the 


INTRODUCTION.  XXV 

passages  of  his  book  quoted  as  testimony,  and  the  decision  of  the 
court.  During  the  whole  trial,  it  appeared  plain  to  me,  that  he 
was  by  the  court  viewed  as  the  legitimate,  and  the  only  legiti- 
mate expounder  of  his  own  printed  words;  and  in  support  of  this 
it  was  alleged,  that  he  knew  best  what  was  his  own  meaning. 

Now  the  appellant  believes  that  the  court  itself  was  the  only 
authorised  expositor.  They  had  no  right  to  take  the  present  views 
of  the  party  at  the  bar ;  nor  his  present  gloss  upon  his  own  words, 
formerly  uttered,  as  their  correct  meaning.  They  were  bound 
simply  to  weigh  the  words  according  to  their  obvious  meaning  in 
their  connexion,  and  according  to  the  usages  of  the  language. 
The  question  before  them  was  not  (or  ought  not  to  have  been) 
What  does  Mr.  Barnes  now  teach  or  deny  1  Not,  what  does  he 
now  say  he  taught  then  ?  But  simply,  what  has  he  taught  here 
in  this  book .' 

Every  candid  mind  must  perceive,  that  if  a  man  shall  be  per- 
mitted to  give  his  own  explanation  to  his  own  words,  no  man  can 
ever  be  convicted  of  holding  error,  unless  he  be  so  stupid  as  to 
be  unable  to  distinguish  between  truth  and  error,  and  to  fetter 
down  and  explain  away  his  own  terms.  A  very  small  portion  of 
talent  for  mystification  can  gloss  over  the  most  obnoxious  terms. 
For  example:  An  action  of  slander  is  brought  against  me,  for 
uttering  the  words — '1  saw  O.  P.  Q.  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  at 
a  public  dinner  on  the  4th  of  July.'  It  is  proved  that  I  pronounced 
these  words,  and  that  I  am  not  on  friendly  terms  with  O.  P.  Q. 
I  put  in  a  plea  of  justification,  and  claim  the  privilege  of  explain- 
ing. I  show  both  from  my  habits  of  speaking  and  writing,  that  I 
have  used  the  term  intoxication,  in  application  to  high  mental  ex- 
citement. The  man  was  intoxicated  with  joy.  This  is  all  I 
meant.  It  was  a  compliment.  I  was  simply  representing  the 
strong  patriotic  feeling  of  O.  P.  Q.;  he  was  intoxicated  with  joy 
upon  a  reminiscence  of  the  glorious  transactions  this  day  com- 
memorates. Or,  I  show  that  1  have  been  in  the  habit  of  abusing 
Pennsylvania  as  a  drunken  state — the  whiskey  insurrection  state 
— the  state  of  intoxication.  I  meant  nothing  more  than  that  I 
saw  O.  P.  Q.  in  Pennsylvania  that  day.  Will  the  court  and  jury 
take  my  explanation,  and  find  me  a  verdict  1  or  will  they  judge 
for  themselves  what  my  language  means?  Will  they  receive  as 
authority,  my  present  testimony,  in  my  own  favour;  or  will  they 
ascertain  by  other  scales,  the  weight  of  the  words  proved  "J 

This,  I  take  it,  is  the  grand  error  of  the  Presbytery,  as  to  the 
ground  of  their  decision.  They  made  Mr.  Barnes  both  witness 
and  judge  in  his  own  case,  by  a  gratuitous  assumption  of  his  pre- 
sent views,  and  his  present  exposition  of  his  language  formerly 
uttered,  and  now  adduced  in  proof,  as  being  undoubtedly  the  true 
and  proper  sense  of  that  language ;  and  of  his  doctrines  there  pub- 
lished. Accordingly,  notwithstanding  he  had  said  in  his  defence, 
"  the  doctrine  of  all  sinning  in  Adam,  and  falling  with  him,  I 
mean  to  reject,"  the  Presbytery  acquitted  him  on  the  ground  of 


XXVI  INTRODUCTION. 

his  oft-repeated  declavation,  that  he  agreed  with  his  accuser  in 
the  substantial  facts  of  the  case. 

All  these  considerations,  and  some  others,  conspire  to  sustain 
me  in  the  conviction,  that  my  tenth  and  last,  and  principal  reason 
of  appeal  is  just  and'  true,  viz. : 

10.  Because  the  decision  of  the  Presbytery  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  exhibited  in  the  charges,  and  the 
Testimony  and  the  law.     It  is  not  a  righteous  decision. 
All  which  is  respectfully  submitted,  by 
Your  unworthy  brother  in  the  Lord, 

GEO.  JUNKIN. 


Decision  of  the  Synod  of  Philadeljihia  on  the  above  Appeal. 

Resolved,  1.  That  in  view  of  the  proof  presented  to  Synod,  and 
of  the  whole  case,  the  decision  of  the  (Assembly's)  2d  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  in  the  case  of  the  cjiargcs  of  the  said  Geo.  Junkin 
against  the  said  Albert  Barnes,  be  and  the  same  hereby  is  reversed, 
as  contrary  to  truth  and  righteousness,  and  the  Appeal  declared 
to  be  sustained. 

2.  That  some  of  the  errors  alleged  in  the  charges  to  be  held 
by  the  said  Albert  Barnes  are  fundamental;  and  all  of  them  con- 
trary to  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States;  and  that  they  do  contravene  the  system  of  truth  therein 
taught,  and  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God. 

3.  That  the  said  Albert  Barnes  be,  and  he  hereby  is  suspended 
from  the  exercise  of  all  the  functions  proper  to  the  gospel  minis- 
try, until  he  shall  retract  the  errors  hereby  condemned,  and  give 
satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance." 

On  the  general  resolution  to  sustain  the  appeal  and  reverse  the 
decision  of  the  Presbytery,  the  vote  stood — Ai/es,  73  Ministers,  69 
Elders.  Noes,  14  Ministers,  2  Elders.  Non  liquets— 17.  Ex- 
cused— 1.  On  the  final  vote  adopting  the  minute  closing  with  the 
above  three  resolutions,  the  vote  stood — Ayes,  58  Ministers,  58 
Elders — 116.  JSarjs,  29  Ministers,  2  Elders.  Non  liquets  and 
excused,  8. 

Thus,  for  sustaining  the  appeal,  by  parliamentary  rule,  there 
were  159  to  16 — nearly  teji  to  one ;  and  but  two  Elders  in  the 
whole  Synod  were  found  ready  to  vote  in  favour  of  the  New  side. 
So  true  is  it,  that  the  hope  of  orthodoxy  lies  in  the  popular  branch 
of  our  ecclesiastical  organization.  It  takes  long  and  hard  labour 
to  corrupt  the  Eldership  by  false  philosophy. 


THE  ARGUMENT  OF  THE  PROSECUTOR 

IN    THE 

Case  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes. 

Thb  understanding  of  man  h  that  facility  of  the  mind  or  soul 
by  which  he  judges.  Judging  is  that  opera  f  ion  in  which  the  un- 
derstanding compares  tlioughts  or  ideas  and  marks  their  agree-" 
ment  or  difference  or  both.  To  the  mind's  performing  this  ope- 
ration dit  a.\\,  the  possession  of  thoughts  is  indispensable:  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  performance  and  of  the  results  of  the  operation^ 
^recmo?i  of  thought  is  necessary,  and  the  latter  musft  be  in  pro- 
portion to  the  former.  If  a  man  have  not  the  precise  materials 
detached  from  all  others  to  place  inr  the  balances  of  a  just  judg- 
ment, he  cannot  weigh  them  and  tell  their  relative  value.  Know 
ledge  therefore  of  the  whole"  case  is  essential  to  a'  right  decisioiT 
by  our  judging  faculty.-  Scales,  however,  of  perfect  equipoise,' 
and  a  beam  accurately  divided  into  two  equal  parts,  and  a  pivot 
under  its  centre,  are  not  all  the  requisites  to  absolute  precision  in 
the  result?.-  The  pivot  of  truth,  on  which  the  intellectual  balance 
turns,  must  be  brought  to  a  point  and  kept  free  from  the  rust  of 
envy,  or  the  rancid  dust-thick:ened  oil  of  prejudice  ;  this  is  best  af*' 
fected  by  suitable  cleansing'  and  a  little  droj)  of  the  pure  oil  of 
charity.  With  such  precautions  we  may  hope  a  right  and  equaf 
judgment.  H«nce  in  all  litigated  questions  between  man  and  man- 
the  importance  of  the  judging  power  being  kept  free  from  partial' 
views,  calculated  to  throw  the  beam  off  its  centre,  the  scales  off  a 
true  equipoise,  or  to  clot  the  pivot  with  the  rust  of  prejudice. 

In  tlie  case  of  the  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  f  was  applied  to  by  a 
publisher,  just  about  the  close  of  the  trial  ill  July,  for  my  notes 
for  publication.  Mr.  Barnes  had  consented  to  give  his  and 
seemed  desirous  that  I  should  do  the  same.  I  declined  for  two 
reasons.      1.  Because    rrty     argument    was    made    from    very 

I 


brief  notes  constituting  mere  heads  of  doctrine  and  reference* 
to  proof.  2.  And  principally  as  it  never  was  intended  from  the 
first,  that  the  case  should  stop  short  of  the  General  Assembly, 
(the  grand  design  being  to  procure  a  ilnai  adjudication  and  settle- 
ment of  the  litigated  points,)  I  thought,  and  stated  it,  that  it  would 
be  best  to  leave  the  higher  courts  free  from  all  prejudice  of  our 
creating,  and  let  them  come  up  to  their  solemn  and  important 
work,  without  any  bias  of  judgment;  and  for  this  end  also,  I  was 
very  desirous  to  have  liad  the  case  brought  up  to  the  Assembly 
of  last  year,  before  the  whole  land  should  be  excited  into  preju- 
dice. I  therefore  declined  the  publication,  and  have  still  perse- 
vered in  the  belief  that  this  is  the  correct  course.  It  appears  to 
me,  that,  as  in  civil  affairs,  it  is  criminal  to  prejudice  the  court,  it 
cannot  be  altogether  innocent  in  ecclesiastical  matter.  There  is 
indeed  a  difference  in  the  cases.  Ours  relate  to  matters  of  doc- 
trinal belief,  and  admit  free  discussion  on  the  general  principles; 
but  still  where  personal  interests  are  allied  to  doetrinal  opinion, 
and  official  character  is  at  stake,  prudence  should  teach  parties 
to  stand  back.  We,  the  parties,  stand  at  the  judicial  bar;  to 
that  we  have  appealed;  and  I  conceive  we  have  no  right,  during 
the  pending  of  our  own  cause  there^  to  litigate  at  another  bar; 
■we  have  no  right,  and  we  can  have  no  right  in  the  very  nature  of 
rights  to  a  trial  at  two  different  tribunals  at  the  same  time,^and 
for  the  same  thing. 

This  is  my  doctrine.  Why  then,  you  will  say,  does  your  prac- 
tice contradict  it  ]  Why  do  you  publish  your  argument  in  the 
case  of  Mr.  Barnes!  I  answer,  because,  new  rights  result  from 
new  wrongs.  I  have  no  right  to  thrust  with  violence  a  man  out 
of  my  house  who  comes  in  peaceably  and  lawfully  :  but  if  a  man 
enter  for  villainous  and  unlawful  purposes,  I  have  a  right  to  eject 
him  by  force  if  need  be.  Mr.  Barnes  has  committed  what  I  sup- 
pose a  imrong  in  refusing  to  plead  before  the  bar  of  his  own  choice, 
and  then  preferring  his  plea  before  a  tribunal  unknown  to  our  ec- 
clesiastical constitution  :  and  out  of  his  wrong  my  right  grows. 
He  ha^  arraigned  me  at  the  tribunal^  of  the  people :  not,  you  will 
observe,  of  God's  people  only ;  but  of  the  world  at  large.  His 
"  Defence"  is  made  at  a  bar  where  no  bill  had  been  preferred 
against  him,  until  after  he  there  appeared.  Not  satisfied  with 
the  legitimate  courts  of  Christ's  house,  he  has  actually  spread  be- 


fore  the  world  in  tens  of  thousands  of  copies,  his  entire  written  ar- 
gument. Will  not  the  reader  justify  me  in  sending-  my  argument 
for  the  truth,  after  this  "  Z)e/ewce,"  though  it  should  lag  far  behind? 
Justice,  wherever  her  throne  be,  is  the  same  in  her  essential  cha- 
racters and  indispensable  requisites.  Whether  in  the  popular  bo- 
som or  on  the  supreme  bench ;  she  must  have  her  balances  and 
her  facts.  In  the  premature  effort  of  my  brother,  she  has  had  her 
scales  thrown  indeed  into  a  very  forbidding  attitude,  one  hung  to 
the  ground  by  its  ponderous  load,  the  other  empty.  This  however 
will  soon  be  rectified.  Her  hand  is  even  now  lowering  to  restore 
the  empty  scale  to  its  just  equipoise,  and  receive  my  argument; 
when  this  is  fairly  in,  let  her  hand  rise,  and  the  Church  of  God, 
yea,  the  world  itself  judge  where  abides  eternal  truth. 

It  needs  scarcely  be  added  here,  that  the  argument  before  the 
Synod  of  Philadelphia,  was  a  hasty  sketch,  and  the  report  iia  the 
New  York  Observer  a  mere  skeleton  of  that  sketch. 

Here  presented,  it  is  written  as  if  for  the  Assembly :  it  has 
been  prepared  at  intervals  of  time  picked  up,  chiefly  whilst  from 
home  on  a  collecting  agency.  There  is  no  time  to  me  for  re- 
vision :  it  must  therefore  appear  from  the  original  rough  draft, 
aad  if  attacked  on  the  score  of  literature,  it  will  find  in  me  no 
defender.  An  apology  for  its  inaccuracies,  may  be  found  in  the  fact, 
that  I  did  not  expect  it  to  be  published  entire,  until  I  should  have 
had^time  to  write  it  over:  but  the  emission  of  some  thousands  of 
extra  Philadelphians,  with  t'le  "Defence"  of  Mr.  Barnes,  seems 
to  render  an  earlier  emission  proper ;  and,  having  public  appoint- 
ments in  various  parts  of  the  country,  I  must  let  it  go  even  as  it 
is.     It  may  appear  hereafter  in  another  form. 

George  Junkin, 

Philadelphia^  March  3,  1836. 


Mr.  Moderator, 

Deep  and  solemn  are  the  responsibilities  of  a  gospel  minister. 
He  is  the  servant  of  the  Most  High,  and  to  his  own  Master  he 
must  render  an  account  of  the  service  he  may  perform,  of  that 
which  he  may  neglect,  and  of  the  manner  and  spirit  of  both  his 
action  and  his  inaction.  The  precise  period,  particular  form,  and 
all  the  circumstances  of  this  account  conspire  to  fill  the  mind  with 
conceptions  awful  as  eternity,  and  emotions  agitating  as  the 
convulsions  of  dissolvincr  nature. 


The  precise  period  fixed  upon  for  this  account  is  none  other  tl:iaja 
that  set  forth  in  the  sacred  voUnie  as  the  c^onsummation  of  all 
things — when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  be  revealed  in  his  glory,  and 
all  flesh  shall  see  him  together. 

The  particular  form  of  this  account  is  tliat  which  belongs  to  olH.- 
cial  rank.  Tipe  minister  of  God  must,  as  an  individual  sinner,  ip- 
common  with  other  men,  respond  to  the  interrogations  of  the  final 
Judge  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  spent  his  brief  day  upon  earth. 
But  besides  this,  he  must  answer  to  him  who  called  him  to  take 
part  of  this  ministry,  for  the  substance  of  its  duties  and  the  manner 
pf  their  performance,  or  the  reasons  of  their  neglect.  As  a  subr 
prdiiiate  officer— ^a^  steward — he  must  give  his  official  account. 

AH  the  circumstances  are  of  peculiar  solemnity.  He  will  stand 
in  that  day  before  an  assembled  universe.  There  will  be  the  people 
Jo  whom  he  ministered,  or  should  have  ministered,  in  holy  things. 
Spectators  they  shall  be  and  witnesses  for  or  against  hirn.  Souls  of 
immortal  mould,  lost  by  his  neglect,  or  saved  through  his  instru- 
mentality, clustering  round  will  encircle  the  dread  tribunal  to 
mark  the  accuracy  of  his  statements.  The  omniscient  eye  pf  his 
Judge  sliall  be  upon  him  and  upon  them — that  eye  which  now 
boams  mercy  and  compassiqn,  will  then  as  now  look  through  his 
being.  But  then,  ao  it  doth  not  now,  will  it  expose  to  naked  gaze 
the  totality  of  that  being,  its  attributes  and  its  entire  actings — 
especially,  however,  its  official  actings.  These  may  be  summed 
up  under  the  two  heads  of  doctrinal  instruction  and  pastoral  vigi- 
lance. "Take  heed  unto  thyself,  and  unto  the  doctrine;  continue 
in  them  ;  for  in  doing  this  thou  shalt  both  snve  thyself  and  them 
that  hear  thee."  (1  Tim.  iv.  i6.)  And  with  increasing  solemnity 
he  says,  ♦'  1  charge  thee,  before  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  shall  jud^e  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appe^rin^  and  king- 
dom ;  preach  the  word ;  be  iijstant  in  season  out  of  season  ;  re- 
prove, rebuke,  exhort  with  all  long-suffering  and  doctrine."  2 
Tim.  iy,  1,  2. 

Agreeably  to  these  serious  charges,  the  man  of  God  is  bound  to 
give  himself  to  reading,  to  meditation,  to  prayer,  and  all  those  la- 
bours of  intellect  \vhich  may  enable  him  to  come  forUi  to  his  people 
Weil  furnished  with  doctrinal  truth.  A  witness  for  God,  he  is  laid 
under  sacred  obligations  to  know  the  truth  and  to  speak  it  alt 
in  its  proper  order,  time  and  place.  He  may  not  exhibit  his  own 
opinions,  but  God's.  He  may  not  plunge  into  the  dark  mist  ot 
metaphysical  and  philosophical  speculatit)n,  and  detail  the  results 
of  his  groping  research-~^his  rude  abstractions,  in  room  of  simple 
gospel  truth.  His  it  is  to  reason  out  of  the  Scriptures.  These 
are  to  be  the  limit  and  the  rule  of  all  his  doctrinal  instruction, 
and  its  practical  application. 

But  even  more  laborious  and  awfully  responsible,  if  more  can 
be,  are  the  duties  of  his  pastoral  vigilance.  His  it  is  to  go  fortlj, 
especially  "in  the  dark  and  cloudy  day,"  into  the  defiles  of  the 
mountains  and  the  waste  and  clesolate  places  of  th^  \md^  ^^:hitheif 


the  flock  of  his  Master  may  be  scattered,  and  to  seek  and  to  search 
them  out ;  to  collect  them  into  the  fold  of  tlie  Good  Sliepherd,  to 
go  in  and  out  before  them  and  lead  them  upon  the  mountains  of 
Israel.  And  as  "  the  Great  Shepherd  of  the  sheep"  knows  his 
own  sheep,  and  is  known  of  them,  so  the  under-shepherd  is  bound 
to  know  his  own,  and  peculiarly  to  watch  over  and  guard  those 
who  may  he  feeble  or  wayward,  so  that  for  every  one  he  may  ren- 
der a  satisfactory  account  "  when  the  Chief  Sheplicrd  shall  ap- 
pear." In  view  of  tfiese  exhausting-  labours  and  consuming  cares 
and  soul-burdening  responsibilities,  well  may  the  man  of  God, 
compassed  as  he  is  with  infirmities,  exclaim  "  Who  is  sufficient  for 
these  things  V 

To  all  thie,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  know  your  heart  most  cordially 
responds.  Deeply  have  you  felt  these  responsibilities,  and  earnest- 
ly have  your  desires  gone  forth  after  that  grace  whereby  alone  any 
man  can  be  sustained  under  a  realising  sense  of  their  magnitud-e. 
Why  then,  you  will  say  to  me,  why  harass  a  christian  brother  1 
— why  increase  the  heavy  bard'^'nsof  a  minister  of  God  by  such  a 
prosecution  as  this  ?  Has  not  this  brother  sufficient  cares  and  la- 
bours already  for  any  one  man  to  sustain?  Wherefore  then  add 
the  spirit-chafing  and  patience-exhausting  efibrts  necessary  in  de- 
fending against  charges  like  these  ? 

These  interrogations  are  exceedingly  natural,  and  very  spe- 
cious. And  I  am  not  wholly  unapprised  of  the  peculiar  difficul- 
ties to  which  he  is  exposed  who  voluntarily  steps  forward  to  be 
a  public  prosecutor  of  a  christian  brother,  eminent  for  talents  and 
occupyinga  distinguished  station  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  The 
simple  fact  creatas  as  it  were  instinctively,  a  feeling  of  disgust 
towards  the  individual  and  of  indignation  agahist  his  conduct. 
Any  person  can,  and  almost  every  person  will,  apply  to  such  dis- 
turbers of  the  peace,  the  language  which  John  applies  to  Satan 
himself.  Accordingly  I  have  already  been  branded  by  not  a  few^ 
"  the  accuser  of  the  brethren,"  and  motives  have  been  attributed 
to  me  which  are  not  mine,  either  by  original  conception  or  by  legal 
imputation.  ^ Hence,  sir,  it  becomes  proper  and  necessary  and  just, 
to  premise  a  few  remarks  in  reference  to  my  present  posture. 

1,  Not  all  the  duties  of  men  and  of  ministers  are  pleasant. 
Doubtless,  to  have  embraced  his  brother  Peter  in  all  the  warmth 
of  fraternal  feeling,  would  have  been  exceedingly  gratifying  to 
the  heart  of  Paul,  and  most  congenial  witfi  the  spirit  of  love 
which  breathed  through  his  whole  conduct:  but  yet  he  felt  him- 
self constrained  to  meet  him  with  the  power  of  displeasure  on  his 
brow,  and  the  language  of  stern  rebuke  upon  his  tongue.  He 
withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed.  And  thus 
it  often  happens.  The  course  most  agreeable  to  our  feelings  is  not 
the  course  of  duty.  Who  that  desires  to  preserve  a  conscience 
void  of  offence  toward  God  and  toward  man,  has  never  been  con- 
strained to  meet  duties,  even  of  friendship  and  love,  very  trying  to 
bothi 

1* 


•2.  Among  duties  of  this  kind,  is  the  very  one  in  qneetion  :  as  iii 
the  case  of  Paul  against  Pctor ;  and  as  contemplated  in  the  cons.k- 
tution  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  (Dis.  v.  5.)  where  we  are  told, 
that  "Process  against  a  gospel  minister,  shall  not  be  commenced, 
unless  some  person  or  persons,  undertake  to  make  out  thq 
charge.''  It  is  perfectly  obvious,  that  if  a  minister  may  and  can 
ever  be  lawfully  prosecuted,  some  person  or  persons  must  do  it. 
Yea,  tliat  prosecution  for  error  is  in  some  cases  right,  is  evident. 
(Dis.  V.  13)  "Heresy  and  schism,  may  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  in- 
fer deposition :  but  errors  ought  to  be  fully  considered."  It  may 
therefore,  according  to  the  Bible  and  tiie  constitution,  be  the 
duty  sometimes  of  some  'person  to  prosecute  a  Christian  minister. 
Do  you  demand  the  reasons  why  i  think  this  time  is  come,  and 
this  person  is  before  you  ! 

3.  This  demand  I  shall  meet,  not  however  to  justify  my  motives, 
but  simply  to  exhibit  reasons  for  my  conduct.  Motives  uneX" 
pressed,  it  is  God's  to  judge.  All  iaipoachmcnt  of  these,  I  leave 
witli  him.  No  man  has  a  right  to  judge  motives,  only  so  far  as 
they  are  exhibited  in  conduct.  If  by  look,  word,  or  act,  I  should 
violate  the  law  of  love,  then  condemn  me;  but  not  upon  the  evi- 
dence of  evil  motives,  merely  suspected  and  surmised.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  my  heart  iu  all  this  business,  to  be  guided  by  that 
charity  which  thinketh  noevil ;  and  if  I  be  found  to  err  from  this 
purpose,  it  will  be  through  an  inhrmity  of  nature,  and  not  through 
unchristian  wilfulness.  On  this  point,  Mr.  Moderator,  you  will 
please  to  keep  jn  mind,  that  neither  quickness  of  reply,  nor  ele- 
vation of  voicCj  becoming  disagreeably  shrill  as  it  rises,  or  even 
vehenience  of  manner  in  action,  are  infallible  evidences  of  bad 
temper  in  a  speaker.  By  reason  of  these  defects,  I  have  been 
frequently  misunderstood  in  public  discussion,  and  bad  feeling 
has  been  imputed  to  me,  where  there  was  every  thing  the  re- 
verse. In  the  late  General  Assembly,  some  of  my  warmest 
friends  of  recent  acquaintance,  fell  into  this  wrong  inference,  and 
spoke  to  me  on  this  subject;  I  assured  them  they  were  mistaken — 
there  was  no  feeling  such  as  they  supposed.  Astowarmlhofmanner, 
approaching  sometimes  to  vehemence,  you  will  bear  with  it.  You 
l^ve  to  see  it  in  the  pulpit,  and  why  not  in  a  deliberative,  or  even 
in  a  judicial  assojiibly,  when  the  occasion  calls  for  iti  If  defect  it 
is,  it  is  one  which  1  am  not  very  anxious  to  correct.  My  soul 
desires  not  alliance  with  him  who  can  speak  on  ttie  most  serious 
and  important  subjects  without  emotion.  If  unable  to  preserve 
the  happy  medium  in  this  thing,  let  me  rather  be  found  among  the 
enthusiasts  than  among  the  phlegmatics. 

4.  The  great  reason  why  I  am  before  you  in  the  odious  characr 
ter  of  a  volunteer  accuser,  is  this,  that  eternal  truth  is  at  stake. 
Brother  Barnes  has  in  those  "Notes  on  Romans,"  impugned 
^ome  of  the  leading  doctrines  of  Christianity.  To  me  it  appears, 
that  he  has  uttered  sentiments  directly  at  variance  witli.  the 
standards  of  our  church,  and  with  the  Bible :  and  these,  not  of 


comparative  insignificance,  but  of  vital  importance.  There  are 
doctrines  set  forth  in  this  volume,  as  I  su^Tpose,  fwulamentalbj 
erroneous.  Nor  am  I  alone  in  this  opinion.  That  you  may  be 
convinced  of  this,  and  thereby  disposed  to  give  a  more  patient 
hearing-,  let  me  present  the  opinions  of  the  gentlemen  who  con- 
duct the  Biblical  Repertory.  In  vol.  ii.  p.  92,  they  say,  "It  is 
now,  by  many  who  would  be  esteemed  orthodox,  and  Calvanistic 
too,  considered  so  absurd  to  hold  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  that  they  will  not  even  condescend  to 
argue  the  point  and  demonstrate  its  falsehood.  If  these  be  correct 
in  their  views  of  the  subject,  it  must  create  some  surprise,  tliat  all 
theologians,  from  the  days  of  Augustine,  who  were  not  ;uknow- 
ledged  heretics,  believed  firmly  in  this  doctrine  and  considered 
it  as  fundamental  in  the  Christian  system.  Is  it  certainly  the 
fact,  that  these  modern  impugners  of  the  ancient  doctrine  of  the 
church,  understand  the  Scriptures  better  than  all  who  have  gone 
before  themT  Or  is  it  undoubted,  that  they  are  endowed  with  a 
perspicuity  so  much  superior  to  that  of  Augustine,  Calvin,  Owen, 
and  Edwards,  that  what  these  thought,  after  profound  considera- 
tion, might  be  defended  as  reasonable,  is  so  absurd  as  not  to  merit 
a  refutation  ?  Now  we  confess  ourselves  to  be  of  the  nunjber  of 
•tiiose  who  believe,  whatever  reproach  it  may  bring  upon  us  from 
a  certain  quarter,  that  if  the  doctrine  of  imputation  be  given  up, 
the  whole  doctrine  of  original  sin  must  be  abandoned.  And  if 
this  doctrine  be  relinquished,  then  the  whole  doctrine  of  redemp- 
tion must  fall,  and  what  may  then  be  left  of  Christianity,  they 
may  contend  for  that  will ;  but  for  ourselves,  we  shall  be  of 
opinion,  that  what  remains  will  not  be  worth  a  serious  struggle." 
Other  men  then,  it  seems,  and  men  whose  opinions  are  wont  to 
be  treated  with  respect,  coincide  with  me  in  opinion.  They 
think  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  including  imputation,  viz.  the 
imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  and  necessarily  drawing  along  with  it 
the  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness — the  very  doctrines, 
whose  rejection  constitutes  the  leading  error  of  this  Book  or 
Notes — these  are  fitncltiinental.  Deny  these,  and  "what  remains 
will  not  be  worth  a  serious  struggle."  Reject  the  covenants — 
as  this  book  does  most  explicitly,  and  you  take  away  the  founda- 
tion of  a  sinner's  hope  for  eternity.  Thus  you  perceive  good 
reasons  exist  why  some  person  at  least  should  "  make  out  the 
charges,"  and  prosecute  to  a  final  issue,  and  procure  a  sentence 
of  condemnation  upon  errors  so  fatal  to  the  Christian  system. 

5.  But,  Mr.  Moderator,  the  right  of  securing  such  a  deci- 
sion by  prosecuting  an  individual  minister,  is  peremptorily  denied 
by  the  accused  in  this  case.  "  I  utterly  deny  the  right,''^  says  he 
"of  any^  man  to  arraign  me  before  a  court,  merely  to  make  me  the 
occasion  for  a  discussion  of  an  abstract  doctrine,  in  theology,  poli- 
tics, or  morals."  Now  if  the  ground  taken  by  the  Brother  here 
be  correct,  I  want  to  know  how,  and  in  what  form,  any  man  sus- 
taining a  fair  moral  character,  can  be  tried  and  convicted  of  error  1 


8 

Is  it  in  any  case  right  to  try  a  man  for  teaciiing  error !     What 
is  the  desig-n  in  every  such  trial  ?     Is  it  to  wreak  vengeance  upon 
the  man  ?     Is  iiis  punishment  the  object  !  or  is  it  the  vindication 
of  the  truth/     Duubtless  the  latter  is  the  great  aim   of  all  disci- 
pline and  all  censure.     To  remove  the  oflence  of  teaching  error, 
and  to  bring  back  the  wanderer  from  his  erratic  course  into  the 
paths  of  truth,  are  the  only  legitimate  objects.    But  Brother  Barnes 
would  have  you  believe  that  my  object  must  be  to  see  him  pu- 
nished, his  character  ruined,  his  usefulness  cut  short.  Oh  !   Mr. 
Moderator,  how  I  would  rejoice  to  see  his  usefulness  increased 
tenfold,  his  character  for  consistency  as  a  Presbtyerian  minister, 
shine  forth,  and  his  person  and  life  escape  censure  and  punishment 
from  all  but  the  known  enemies  of  the  truth,  and  thus  our  beloved 
Zion  relieved  from  the  agonies  she  endures  in  consequence  of  the 
errors  in  this  book  and  elsewhere  published  to  the  world.  These  are 
among  the  important  objects  in  view.     But  the  Brother  says  then, 
"  A  proposition  should  have  been  submitted  to  the  Presbytery,  to 
organize  itself  into  a  court  of  judges,  on  a  trial  of  skill  in  contro- 
versy, and  the  propositions  should  have  been  submitted  for  discus- 
sion ;  and  charges  should  not  have  been  brought  against  a  minis- 
ter of  the  g'ospel."     Surely  this  was  written  for  public  amuse- 
ment and  diversion  :  that  the  minds  of  men  might  not  dwell  upon 
the  merits  of  this  case ;  but  be  lashed  into  a  foam  of  indignation 
against  the  wanton  murderer  of  ministerial  reputation.     In  reply, 
let  me  ask,  suppose  such  a  proposition  had  been  made  to  the  2d 
Presbytery,  what  would  they  have  saidi     They  would  have  said, 
Sir,  you  are  mistaken.     This  is  not  a  court  of  abstract  casuistry. 
We   cannot  engage  in  such  trifles.      W^here  is  your  authority 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  for  demanding  such  a  trial  ? — 
Show  us  the  authority  by  which  we  are  bound  to  sit  and  judge 
in  such  a   case.     On   the  contrary,  the  last  General   Assembly 
marked  out  the  true  constitutional  course.  True,  the  Assembly  of 
1831,  did  say  in  reference  to  these  very  questions,  "  If  they  be 
answered,  they  had  better    be  discussed   and  decided  in   thesi, 
separate  from  the  case  of  Mr.  Barnes."    (Minutes  p.  180.)     But 
then  there  is  no  authority  in  our  Standards,  by  which  a  church 
court  can  be  compelled  to  judge   on  abstract  questions.     They 
may  do  it  if  they  choose,  but  there  is  no   obligation,  and    we 
choose  to  decline.     The  last   Assembly    prescribed  the  proper 
course, — (see  Minutes,  p.  26.)  "  the  fair  and  unquestionable  mode 
of  procedure  is,  if  the  author  [of  a  book  alleged  to  contain  error] 
be  alive,  and  known  to  be  of  our  communion,  to  institute  process 
against  him ;  and  give  him  a  fair  and  constitutional  trial."     If 
therefore  you  desire  a  legal  decision  on  these  points,  we  say,  with 
that  wise  Assembly,  "institute   process  against  him;  and  give 
him  a  fiiir  and  constitutional  trial.     And  until  you  do  this,  we  beg 
leave  to  decline  all  action  in  the  case."  Such,  Mr.  Moderator, 
would  have  been  your  answer.    Such  it  must  have  been  agreea- 
bly to  the  principles  of  common  sense,  as  they  are  embodied  in 


9 

tb^  laws,  <;ivil  and  ecclesiastical,  and  the  practices  of  'Courts  hi 
both. 

6.  But  ill  pressing  this  point  of  abstract  and  moral  process,  Mr.  • 
Barnes  gives  occasion  to  me  for  another  remark,  viz :  That  in 
bringing-  these  charges,  I  do  not  originally  publish  him  as  an 
errorist,  and  thereby  assail  his  character.  For  he  very  adroitly 
assumes  the  singular  position  as  true,  that,  until  these  charges 
were  made  out,  nobody  in  all  the  world  had  ever  heard  that  he 
was  suspected  of  maintaining  doctrines  contrary  to  our  standards ! 
•"  Suppose,"  says  he,  "that  Dr.  Junkiu  had  arraigned  me  before  a 
court  having' competent  jurisdiction,  on  a  charge  of  adultery, — 
Suppose  that  the  fact  u'as  proclaimed  abroad,  and  suspicions  were 
excited,  and  counsel  was  employed,  and  a  jury  empannelled. 
Suppose  the  public  mind  had  had  time  to  be  agitated  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  a  strong  bias  should  set  against  my  character,  q.nd  peace 
should  flee  from  my  family,  and  my  public  work  should  be  closed.—^ 
And  then  suppose  that  the  public  should  be  gravely  told,  that  all 
this  was  not  designed  to  injure  me,  but  to  settle  some  mooted 
points  about  the  crime  in  question  ;  and  that  all  this  array  of  in^- 
dictment,  and  of  testimony,  and  of  trial,  had  been  merely  to  bring 
up  the  subject  before  the  tribunal  in  order  to  obtain  a  decision  on 
^he  law.  And  would  it  be  possible  for  the  community  to  repress 
its  indignation  against  conduct  like  this  1"  Now,  Mr.  Moderator, 
4et  me  anticipate  the  obvious  tendency  and  design  of  this  illustra- 
tion, and  prevent  the  rising  of  yours,  and  the  public's  indignatiiMi, 
by  stating,  that  the  cases  are  about  as  dissimilar  as  they  can  well 
be  imagined.  (1.)  The  Brother  has  never  been  arraigned  before 
the  public  law  for  the  crime  of  adultery  :  but  all  the  world  knows 
that  for  many  years  he  has  been,  not  secretly  suspected,  but  publio- 
ly  accused  of  holding  the  errors  here  charged.  For  six  years  the 
religious  press,  and  in  some  degree  the  secular  press,  have  groaned 
under  the  weight  of  this  controversy.  The  charge  of  corruption  in 
•the  Post  Office  Department  was  not  more  public  and ^j^flg-rawf,  than 
was  the  charge  ofhis  holding  and  teaching  error,  before  these  ch^xges 
were  written.  It  is  therefore  all  idle  and  worse  than  idle,  to  insinu- 
ate that  I  have  given  origin  to  these  matters — have  "  published 
them  abroad" — liave  "  excited  suspicions;"  to  destroy  ministerial 
character."  No,  Sir,  1  never  drew  a  pen — never  published  a  line 
of  the  volumes  that  have  been  poured  out  upon  the  public, 
within  tiie  last  six  years:  and  therefore  I  feel  it  to  be  unkind  in 
Brother  Barnes,  to  attempt  to  represent  me  as  an  agitator,  cominif 
in  after  "  the  agitations  of  that  time  had  died  somewhat  away/* 
and  opening  afresh  the  bleeding  wounds  of  a  convalescent  church. 
."The  agitations  of  that  time  had  died  somewhat  away,"  when 
these  charges  were  brought.  Had  they  indeed  !  What !  in  March 
1835  !  Why,  Mr.  Moderator,  how  was  it  in  the  preceding  Gene- 
ral Assembly  1  Were  there  no  "  agitations"  there  1  No,  not  a 
mountain  wave  ! — No,  not  a  roiling  billow  and  a  sweeping  tem^* 
pest !    Why  then  does  my  Brother  throw  out  so  unkind  an  insinu- 


10 

atlon  1  Why  does  he  seem  to  wish  it  understood  that  I  intruded, 
like  an  evil  ang^el,  into  the  peaceful  paradise  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  threw  all  into  agitation  and  angry  strife  1  But  (2.) 
The  hypothesis  he  presents  illustrates  tije  correctness  of  the  re- 
marks 1  made  about  abstract  judicial  process  and  its  absurdity, 
whilst  it  differs  from  the  present  case  in  another  most  material 
point;  viz:  That  a  charge  of  adultery  directly  impoachos  moral 
character,  but  a  charge  of  teaching  error  docs  not  A  (^d)  point  of 
dissimilarity  is,  that  the  one  offence  exposes  to  civil  pains  and  penal- 
ties: tiie  other  does  not.  ]jet  me  however  pass  upon  your  notice 
the  (1.)  as  the  chief  point  here.  In  preferring  these  charges  I 
proclaimed  nothing  new.  It  was  universally  known  that  Brother 
Barnes  was  supposed  by  many  to  hold  those  opinions.  Indeed  he 
himself  has  stated  it.  "  Charges,"  he  says,  "  similar  to  those  had 
been  alleged  against  me.  Those  accusations  had  been  laid  before 
the  General  Assembly."  Why  then — for  I  repeat  a  question : 
why  insinuate  that  the  prosecutor  has  raised  this  storm  ?  On  the 
contrary,  let  me  propose  a  query  now,  which  I  meant  to  press  home 
hereafter,  viz  :  Who  intruded  this  controversy  into  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  and  the  Synod  too?  Did  the  skies  lower  and  the 
lightnings  play  and  the  thunders  roar  and  the  rains  descend  and 
the  floods  beat  upon  this  city  of  brotherly  love,  prior  to  the  intro- 
duction of  Brother  Barnes'  "  Way  of  Salvation  ]" 

7.  There  are  special  reasons  inducing  me  to  undertake  this  un- 
pleasant service  for  the  church.  (1.)  1  once  belonged  to  the 
same  Presbytery  with  Mr.  Barnes;  had  lived  in  the  midst  of  the 
agitations  growing,  as  I  always  supposed,  out  of  his  peculiar 
opinions;  had  many  opportunities  of  marking  the  origin  and 
spread  of  the  leaven  at  work  in  the  mass,  and  had  some  little 
knowledge  of  the  brethren  in  and  around  Philadelphia — their  pe- 
culiar temperament  and  talents.  (2.)  I  do  not  now  belong  to 
that  Synod.  For  more  than  two  years  I  had  ceased  to  mingle  in 
the  deliberations  of  any  of  its  Presbyteries.  This,  it  appeared  to 
me,  was  a  favourable  circumstance.  Removed  to  a  distarice,  not 
too  great  to  prevent  accurate  observation  of  passing  events  ;  nor 
too  small  to  keep  me  in  the  whirl  of  excitement  caused  by  the 
new  theology,  I  really  thought  I  could  look  calmly  on  the  scene, 
and  form  a  tolerably  correct  estimate  of  passing  events.  There- 
fore, (3.)  I  had  observed  one  of  the  necessary  practical  effects  of 
the  protraction  of  these  great  controversies,  viz.  a  waning  of  the 
cause  of  Presbyterian  ism  in  this  city.  Grieved  to  see  such  a 
practical  result  of  the  controversy,  it  occurred  to  me  that  the 
cause  must  be  removed,  or  the  evil  must  increase.  Convinced, 
as  I  still  am,  that  the  true  answer  to  the  church's  complaint, 
"Why  is  my  pain  perpetual,  and  my  wound  incurable,  ivhich  re- 
fuseth  to  be  healed  ?"  (Jer.  xv.  18,)  is  found  in  the  fact  stated  by 
the  same  prophet,  (vi.  14.)  '*  They  have  healed  also  the  hurt  of 
the: daughter  of  my  people  slightly,  saying,  peace,  peace,  when 
there  ia  no  peace,"    J  would  not  avoid  the  opinion,  that  the  man 


11 

who  would  seize  the  probe,  run  it  deep  into  the  festering  wound, 
and  open  up  the  secret  springs  of  its  irritation ;  though  he  must 
first  expect  the  maledictions  of  the  patient,  would  nevertheless 
do  her  the  highest  service,  and  ultimately  win  her  gratitude  and 
love.  (4.)  I  had  been  thrown  occasionally  into  the  agitations  of 
ecclesiastical  strife,  and  though  naturally  excitable  and  quick  in 
temperament,  it  really  appeared  to  me  that  prudence  and  grace 
might  carry  me  through  this  storm,  as  well  as  others.  Or,  to 
change  the  figure,  I  had  seen  the  probe  applied,  the  patient  and 
the  operator  both  writhe,  and  yet  the  happiest  results  follow. 
(5.)  I  had  been  a  pastor,  and.  knew  something  of  a  pastor's  cares, 
and  toils,  and  joys,  and  sorrows ;  and  therefore  was  of  opinion, 
that  my  sympathies  stood  ready  to  shield  the  brother  from  any 
severity  which  truth  might  drop  from  my  tongue.  (6.)  The 
republication  of  the  old  doctrines  of  "  The  Way  of  Salvation," 
of  which  the  General  Assembly  of  1831,  had  said  it  "  contains 
a  number  of  unguarded  and  objectionable  passages;  yet  is  the 
Assembly  of  ophiion,  that  especially  after  the  explanations  which 
are  given  by  him  (Mr.  B.)  of  those  passages,  the  Presbytery 
ought  to  have  suffered  the  whole  to  pass  without  further  notice." 
This  republication  of  the  same  doctrines,  in  a  form  more  objec- 
tionable than  before,  and  freed  from  the  gloss  of  explanations,  has 
fairly  opened  the  door,  and  invited  a  prosecution,  which  stands 
entirely  detached  from  the  former  collisions.  (7.)  The  general  in- 
terests of  the  church,  in  her  charitable  enterprises,  have  been  long 
paralyzed  by  these  agitations.  Brethren  have  been  compelled  to 
stand  in  an  attitude  of  resistance  against  innovation,  and  to  ex- 
pend much  force  in  this  way,  which  they  might,  and  doubtless 
would,  have  expended  in  the  noble  enterprises  of  the  day,  but 
for  the  necessity  under  which  they  were  laid  of  defending  their 
own  firesides  against  the  intrusions  of  a  new  theology.  Now,  I 
say,  let  us  come  up  and  discuss  and  decide,  once  for  all,  the  whole 
matters  at  issue.  Let  the  old  landmarks  of  truth  be  sought  for, 
and  the  lines  be  well  ascertained,  that  every  man  may  know  his 
own  territory,  and  the  spot  where  he  is  to  stand  or  fall. 

These  are  the  leading  reasons  why  this  process  is  begun.  But 
brother  Barnes  has  a  variety  of  objections  to  the  present  prosecutor 
ia  particular.  (1.)  He  belongs  to  a  different  Presbytery  from  him- 
self. This  is  my  (2.)  reason  above  stated,  and  1  think  it  a  good 
and  substantial  one,  why  I  may  lawfully  prosecute.  (2.)  The 
brother  himself  was  of  good  and  fair  standing  with  his  own 
Presbytery  and  churcli.  Answer.(a).  That  he  stood  fair  with  his 
people,  if  he  was  known  to  teach  dangerous  doctrine,  is  a  good 
reason  why  some  person  should  make  out  the  charges.  For  if 
his  own  people  were  dissatisfied  with  his  doctrine,  it  would  be 
evidence  that  they  were  not  in  danger  of  being  drawn  away  from 
the  true  Presbyterian  standards.  (6).That  his  standing  with  his 
Presbytery  was  fair,  was  to  have  been  expected ;  because  it  was 
created  explicitly  and  expressly  fof  his  protection,  and  all  were 


12 

excluded  from  it,  who  might  be  strpposed  in  danger  of  disturbing' 
him  for  his  belief.  Hence  the  indispensable  necessity  of  his  prosecu- 
tor being  of  another  Presbytery.    (3.)  Mr.  Barnes  seems  to  object, 
because  he  '*  was  pursuing  peacefully  the  duties  of  a  most  arduous 
pastoral  charge,  requiring  all  my  time  and  strength;  and,  indeed, 
exhausting  the  vigour  of  life,  and  rapidly  undermining  my  consti- 
tution, by  arduous  and  incessant  duties."     Oh  !  Sir,  if  Mr.  B.  had 
met  the  requirement  of  his  "  most  arduous  pastoral  charge" — 
had  he  devoted  "all  his  time  and  strength,"  "the  vigour  of  his 
life,"  and  "  his  constitution,"  sacredly  to  pastoral  duties,  you  had 
never  heard  of  this  prosecution :  for  then  these  "Notes"  had  never 
been  written;  and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Presbyterian  youth, 
and  hoary  heads  too,  had  never  becrt  endangered  by  the  alarming 
doctrmes  of  this  book.     No,  Sir,  this  brother  did  not  devote  "all 
his  time  and  strength,  and  vigour  of  life"  to  pastoral  labours.    He 
must  extend,  what  I  must  think,  the  baleful  influence  of  "a  num- 
ber of  unguarded  and  objectionable"  doctrines  over  the  length  and 
breadth  of  the  land.     He  must  needs  write  a  book,  containing  the 
most  "  objectionable"   doctrines  of  his  celebrated    sermon,  and 
thrust  it  forth  among  our  Sunday  schools  and  Bible  classes,  and 
churches  and  people,  that  thus  he  may  teach  to  tens  of  thousands 
sentiments  subversive  of  our  entire  system  of  doctrines.     Thus, 
the  fire  which  was  smothered  under,  by  the  slightly  healing  poli- 
cy of  the  Assembly  of  1831,  is,  by  the  breath  of  this  peaceful 
brother,  blown  into  a  flame  that  sweeps  across  the  continent. 
Then  from  the  meekness  of  his  peaceful  retreat  he  looks  forth 
upon  tliis  tempest  of  fire,  and  placidly  complains  that  the  uproar 
produced  by  the  efl:brts  to  extinguish  it,  has  disturbed  the  quiet- 
ness of  his  retreat.    Oh  !  that  Ire  had  paused  but  a  little  for  reflec- 
tion—that he  had  considered  the  possibility  of  the  refluent  flame 
sweeping  through  the  branches  of  his  own  olive  tree,  and  there 
drinking  up  the  oil  of  his  own  consolations.     (4.)  These  charges 
are  substantially  the  same  with  those  once  before  the  Assembly. 
So  they  are,  and  the  Aissembly  condemned  the  sermon  on  "The 
Way  of  Salvation,"  as  "containing  a  number  of  unguarded  and 
objectionable  passages,"  (Min.  p.  180;)  but  exeuljiyated  the  writer 
on  the  ground  of  explanations  given  ;  and  yet  now  in  this  book  of 
Notes,  we  have  similar  expressions  without  an  attempt  to  disguise 
by  explanations.     (5.)  Personal  injury  I  had  never  sustained  at  the 
hand  of  brother  Barnes^  and  hence,  he  infers,  I  could  not  properly 
be  an  accuser.  "To  Dr.  Junkin,"  says  he,  "  I  had  done  no  injury." 
And  again,  "By  bringing  these  charges.  Dr.  Junkin  alleges,  im- 
pliedly, that  he  has  been  injured,  either  personally,  or  as  one  of 
the  Christian  community.     If  not  injured  in  one  of  these  senses, 
there  could  have  been  no  justifiable  pretence  for  bringing  them." 
On  the  contrary,  if  the  accused  had  injured  me  particularly,  it 
would  have  been  a  constitutional  bar  against  my  prosecuting; 
for  our  book  says,  that   "  Great  caufion  ougli*  to  be  exercised 
in  receiving  accusations  from  any  person  who  is  known  to  indulge 


13 

&  malignant  spirit  toward  the  accused— or  who  is  deeply  inte- 
rested, in  any  respect,  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused."     Now, 
injury  received,  atibrds  some  ground  at  least  to  suspect  "  a  malig- 
nant spirit  toward  the  accused/'  and  an  interest  m  his  convic- 
tion.    (6.)  Another  reason  why  I  should  not  prosecute  is  thus 
stated:  "His  opinions  I  have  not  attacked."     How  this  obser- 
vation escaped  the  writer,  it  is  difficult  to  surmise.     My  opinions 
are  contained  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  and 
these  are  most  unceremoniously  attacked  in  this  book.     The  very 
language  of  the  Catechism  is  quoted  in  derision  on  page  117, 
thus,  "  What  idea  is  conveyed  to  men  of  common  m>derstanding 
by  the  expression  they  sinned  in  him  !"  And  on  page  10  and  page 
128,  the  leading  doctrines  of  the  Confession  are  stated  and  rejec- 
ted with  indignity.     How  then  could  it  be  said  "  His  opinions  I 
had  not  attacked  J"     (7.)  I  am  President  of  a  College;  and  there- 
foie  ought   not  to  bring  charges.      "Why  should  Dr.  JunJdn 
feel  himself  called  on  to  stand  forth  as  the  defender  of  orthodoxy, 
and  as  the  accuser  of  his  brethren  .'     Why  should  the  president 
of  a  literary  institution  feel  himself  called  on  to  bring  solemn 
and  grave  charges  of  error  against  a  pastor  in  another  Presby- 
tery f"  In  replying  to  this  item  in  brother  Barnes'  "Defence,"  al- 
low me  to  observe,  that  I  never  could  see  just  reasons  why  Presi- 
dents of  Colleges,  many  of  whom  have  charges  vastly  more  im- 
portant to  the  church  at  large,  than  any  mere  pastoral  charge 
can  be,  should,  because  of  their  office,  be  deprived  of  any  minis- 
terial right.     VVhy  should  men,  who  certainly  need  as  much  deci- 
sion of  character  as  any  other  class  of  citizens,  be  shut  up  to  the 
necessity  and  degradation  of  everlasting  fluctuation  I    Is  it  come 
to  this,  in  a  country  that  glories  in  free  discussion,  and  in  a  state 
where  '*  the  free  communication  of  tho-ughts  and  opinions"  is  de- 
clared to  be  "one  of  the  inalienable  rights  of  man,"  that,  however 
general  the  right  of  opinion  and  the  privilege  of  publishing  it,  the 
entire  class  who  conduct  literary  institutions,  are  put  under  the 
ban  of  proscription  1     Must  presidents  of  colleges  necessarily  be 
men  of  indecision  in  all  matters  of  doctrinal  belief]     Or  if  they 
may  be  permitted  to  entertain  opinions  upon  questions  of  great 
interest  to  the  church  and  the  country,  mitst  they  be  excessively 
cautious  and  reserved  in  their  publication?     On  the  contrary,  is 
it  not  entirely  befitting  those  who  are  entrusted  with  the  govern- 
ment of  youth,  with  especial  regard  to  the  development  of  their 
faculties  and  the  training  of  their  minds  to  habits  of  decided  and 
independent  action,  to  form  for  themselves,  cautiously  and  pru- 
dently, and  to  express  on  all  proper  occasions,  explicitly,  openly, 
and  honestly,  the  moral  and  religious  principles  by  which  them- 
selves and  their  institutions  are  governed '.'     Is  there  a  class  of 
men  in  the  whole  community,  whose  opinions  that  community 
have  a  deeper  interest  and  a  better  right  to  know? 

Now  it  may  be  proper  here  to  state  that  some  friends  did  ad- 
vise me,  in  reference  to  these  agitations  of  the  church,  to  be  quiet, 

2 


14 

and  take  no  part  in  them:  and  I  confeiss  the  advice  seemed  very  plau- 
sible; and  when  the  tirst  trial  of  Mr.  Barnes  in  the  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia  came  on,  it  providentially  turned  up,  that  a  prior  en- 
gagement  called  me  to  a  distance  from  the  scene,  and  1  was  glad 
of  it:  and  should  still  have  been  pleased  to  escape  the  unliappi- 
ness  of  this  position.  But  then  every  minister  has  come  under 
solemn  obligation  to  maintain  the  doctrines  of  our  standards 
against  all  opposition,  and  wherever  and  whenever  the  God  of 
providence  shall  present  opportunity :  and  titerefore,  though  often 
tempted  to  stand  afar  off  and  witness  the  noble  strife  for  truth,  I 
still  met  my  ordination  vows.  They  forbade  shrinking.  They 
told  me  of  claims  upon  conscience,  prior  to  those  of  any  literary 
institution,  and  of  more  fearful  import.  The  peculiar  official  re- 
lation to  a  literary  institution,  docs  not  appear  to  cancel  the  obliga- 
tions officially  borne  to  the  church,  nor  constitute  a  barrier  in- 
superable to  enduring  the  odium  of  prosecution.  Some  think 
otherwise,  however;  and  I  could  name  the  Presbyterian  minister 
who  sent  his  daughter  to  a  Roman  Catholic  seminary,  and  his  son 
to  Lafayette  college :  and  who  removed  the  former  because  her 
Bible  wa;s  taken  from  her,  and  the  latter,  because  the  president 
had  prosecuted  Mr.  Barnes.  A  similar  spirit  appears  to  have 
moved  the  brother  to  make  this  objection  to  his  prosecutor.  On 
the  Monday  preceding  the  publication  of  the  "  Defence,"  brother 
Barnes  and  I  met  in  Broadway,  and  had  some  conversation  :  in  the 
course  of  which  he  inquired,  whether  I  had  come  on  with  a  view 
to  do  something  for  the  college :  I  frankly  replied,  that  that  was 
my  sole  business  in  New  York.  On  Saturday  his  Defence  ap- 
peared, modijied,  you  will  observe,  and  amendtd  for  the  peculiar 
benefit  of  the  college.  Whether  the  giving  of  this  blow  had  any 
influence  upon  the  mind  of  the  brother  and  of  the  editors,  in  hurry- 
ing forth  the  Defence  so  many  weeks  before  a  word  of  argument 
had  been  offered  on  the  other  side,  the  world  will  judge.  Whe- 
ther such  an  attack  be  consistent  with  that  meekness  which  turng 
the  other  cheek,  when  one  has  been  smitten,  the  church  will 
judge. 

An  (8)  objection  to  the  present  prosecution  is,  that  no  general 
name  is  given  to  the  charges — the  term  heresy  is  not  introduced — 
"no  charge  of  crime  was  alleged,  nor  even  of  heresy. ^^  This  ob- 
jection was  made  in  Presbytery,  but  not  until  nearly  three  months 
after  the  charges  were  received  and  admitted  to  lie,  and  a  time 
was  appointed  for  the  trial :  and,  not  until  the  trial  was  just  com- 
mencing, was  it  discovered  that  the  important  word  heresy  was 
omitted  in  the  charges.  And  so  pleased  were  some  of  the  mem- 
bers with  this  discovery,  that  it  was  actually  moved  and  carried 
not  to  proceed  unless  the  prosecutor  would  take  back  his  charges 
and  alter  them  by  the  insertion  of  that  desirable  term.  In  oppo- 
sition to  such  a  dismissal  of  the  case  and  shrinking  from  a  tria', 
I  alleged  several  reasons.  (1)  The  use  of  the  term  heresy  is  cal- 
culated to  excite  terrific  apparitions  in  the  public  mind.     In  for- 


IS 

tfi6f  times  heretics  were  unceremoniously  burnt,  and  our  Imagina- 
tions are  scarcely  capable  of  strict  subjection  to  truth  when  we 
allow  ourselves  to  talk  about  heresy :  we  still  associate  the  gibbet 
and  the  stake ;  the  dungeon  at  best  and  the  rack,  with  the  very 
name  of  heretic.  The  term  was  therefore  omitted.  It  was  felt 
to  be  unnecessary  and  utterly  undesirable  to  use  exciting  epithets 
— epithets  calculated  to  inflame  popular  feeling,  and  draw  forth 
public  indignation.  It  was  politic  in  the  prosecutor;  and  he  is  al- 
ways desirous  to  act  with  prudence  and  policy  whenever  principle 
will  allow  of  it.  He  was  sacredly  resolved  from  the  outset  to  ab- 
stain from  all  language  calculated  to  excite  improper  feeling. 
Nothing  is  ever  gained  to  the  cause  of  truth  by  the  use  of  harsh 
epithets ;  and  few  such  there  are,  that,  when  used  seriously,  are 
better  calculated  to  wound  tender  sensibilities  and  call  up  the 
worst  feelings  of  humanity,  than  to  charge  a  man  with  being  a 
heretic.  All  this  it  was  my  purpose  to  avoid,  and  the  result 
shows  that  the  purpose  was  wise  and  good.  But  now  might  not 
the  question  be  asked,  why  did  brother  Barnes  and  the  Presbytery 
so  much  desire  the  term  heresy  to  be  introduced  1  Did  they  wish 
to  avail  themselves  of  this  handle  to  work  against  the  prosecution? 
Were  they  sorry  at  not  obtaining  this  advantage  and  means  of 
creating  popular  excitement?  Why,  Mr.  Moderistor,  sorne  of  the 
very  court  themselves  could  not  repress  their  own  imaginations; 
but  although  the  charge  was  not  for  heresy  expressly,  they  could 
see,  and  hear,  and  speak  of  nothing  else.  The  horrible  visions  of 
the  tormenting  engines  and  the  stake  were  continually  before  the 
minds  of  some:  and  the  dreadful  idea  of  burning  the  heretic 
haunted  their  imaginations.  Now  if  that  fearful  word  did  these 
things  in  the  green  tree  what  must  have  been  the  effect  of  throw- 
ing this  torch  among  the  dry  leaves,  agitated  by  every  passing 
wind  1  Surely  these  brethren  would  not  wish  to  bring  the  most 
solemn  and  important  decisions  of  a  church  court  under  the  violent 
influence  of  popular  commotion  !  And  surely  therefore  you  will 
admit,  it  was  wise  to  leave  out  every  unnecessary  and  ob- 
noxious term^  But  vagueness  of  the  term  was  alleged  as  a 
reason,  and  the  chief  reason,  why  it  was  not  employed.  It  is 
a  general  term  which  no  man  can  define  with  logical  preci- 
sion. It  would  cost  this  Presbytery  more  time  and  labour,  pro- 
bably, to  tell  what  heresy  is,  than  to  try  this  whole  case.  There 
is  not  much  probability  that  a  week's  discussion  wouldenable 
you  to  settle  this  one  term.  What  is  heresy  here,  may  be  ortho- 
doxy there.  What  is  heresy  with  one,  may  be  but  a  slight  error 
with  another.  Now  I  hate  and  abhor  vague  and  undefinable 
terms.  There  is  nothing  better  calculated  to  entangle  discussion, 
and  to  mystify  argument.  This  it  was  my  purpose  to  avoid.  I 
wished  to  deal  in  specifics,  not  in  generalities;  to  point  out  with 
the  utmost  precision  the  errors  of  the  accused,  as  set  forth  in  this 
book.  Our  Book  of  Discipline  speaks  of  errors  as  being  more  or 
less  dangerous — they  "  ought  to  be  carefully  considered ;  whether 


16 

they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  industriously  spread  ; 
or  whether  they  arise  from  the  weakness  of  tiie  human  under- 
standing, and  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury."  This  matter  I 
wished  to  leave  for  the  Presbytery.  I  have  laid  down  the  posi- 
tions wiiich  I  think  are  taught  in  these  Notes,  and  are  dan- 
gerous errors.  They  are  laid  down  witli  all  tlie  precision  of 
which  I  was  capable.  I  have  done  my  best;  if  that  is  bad,  be  it 
so ;  but  pass  no  censure  for  want  of  plainness,  and  clearness,  and 
explicitness.  You  will  probably  find  them  too  plain  and  clear 
and  specific  to  admit  of  mystification.  (3.)  Another  reason  for 
omitting  the  vague  term  heresy,  was,  that  it  is  not  defined  in  the 
eonstitution  of  our  church.  This  was  admitted  in  the  Presbytery; 
and  was  therefore  not  expanded  and  pressed,  nor  shall  it  be  here. 
It  may  be  proper,  however,  to  add,  what  will  appear  upon  the  face 
of  the  Presbytery's  records,  (if  ever  they  see  the  light,)  that  when 
the  charges  were  received  and  admitted  as  charges,  and  a  day 
appointed  for  the  trial,  there  was  no  objection  made  on  this,  or  any 
other  ground  of  informality,  except  as  to  the  references.  This 
objection  was  an  after  thought,  and  probably  owed  its  conception 
to  the  brother  who  intimated,  very  unkindly,  as  some  thought, 
that  I  had  refused  the  term  heresy,  because  I  was  afraid  to  meet 
the  responsibility  and  the  risk  of  a  prosecution  for  slander  at  the 
bar  of  a  civil  court.  The  quarter  whence  this  remark  came,* 
made  me  feel  it  the  more.  I  thought  that  brother,  with  whom, 
in  the  days  of  other  times,  I  had  taken  sweet  counsel — Oh,  Mr. 
Moderator,  it  was  sweet  counsel,  when  we  drank  in  the  same 
blessed  truths  from  the  same  blessed  lips — when  we  mingled  our 
prayers  at  the  same  throne  of  grace  in  the  social  meeting — when 
we  went  up  to  the  house  of  God  in  company — when  we  mingled 
our  sighs  and  tears  over  the  syojbols  of  our  Saviour's  sorrows.  I 
thought  that  brother  had  known  me  too  well  to  impute  to  me 
eu€h  baseness  as  shrinking  from  the  moral  responsibilities  of  the 
position  in  which  1  had  voluntarily  placed  myself.  But  alas,  since 
those  halcyon  days,  another  gospel  has  saluted  his  ears,  and  anD» 
ther  philosophy  has  won  his  heart.  But  I  am  anticipating  the 
(2d)  remark  here.  Brother  Barnes'  imputation  of  disingenuity  or 
baseness,  against  my  ministerial  character,  is  as  unworthy  of  him- 
self as  it  is  unjust  to  me.  He  would  not  have  done  it  of  his  own 
motion.  I  feel  confident  he  has  been  ill  advised.  Yet  he  has 
done  it  indistinctly,  perhaps;  but  eyes  there  are  which  have  de^ 
tected  it.  Speaking  of  the  omission  of  the  term  hetesy,  he  reite- 
rates the  charge  of  "shrinking" — of  want  of  moral  courage,  and 
adds,  "  it  has  thrown  an  air  of  mystery  over  all  this  transaction, 
which  it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  with  the  principles  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  with  the  requirements  of  the  Presbyterian  church 
in  regard  to  thp  character  of  its  ministers."    The  present  prose- 

*  Rev.  George  Duffieid,  who  had  been  my  fellow  student  under  Df 
Mason. 


17 

cutor  kas  never  insinuated  an  impeachment  of  the  motives  and 
moral  integrity  of  the  defendant  in  this  case ;  and  he  scorns  to 
defend  his  ov^^n,  even  at  "Csesar's  judgment  seat,"  to  which  his 
brother  has  appealed,  and  whither  he  has  dragged  him.  He  only- 
regrets,  that  a  remark  so  dilficult  to  reconcile  with  the  spirit  of 
kindness  which  had  hitherto  cliaracterized  this  discussion,  should 
have  dropped  from  his  brother's  pen.  Of  a  similar  character  is 
the  insinuation,  that  the  prosecutor  is  influenced  by  the  spirit  of 
pride,  vanity,  and  self-conceit.  "  No  man  has  a  right  to  arraign 
me,  10  give  him  the  occasion  of  displaying  his  talent,  or  eloquence, 
or  learning."  Such  remarks  are  unworthy  of  the  writer  and  his 
subject,  ilad  they  proceeded  from  me,  1  think  the  law  of  charity 
would  administer  a  reproof  at  the  bar  of  conscience. 

On  the  principle  of  interpretation  adopted  by  Mr.  Barnes,  and  the 
manner  of  his  applying  it,  you  will  indulge  a  few  remarks.  It  is 
thus  stated  in  the  prelace :  "  The  design  has  been  to  state  what 
appeared  to  the  author  to  be  the  resd  7neaning  of  the  apostle,  with- 
out any  regard  to  any  theological  system ;  and  without  any  defer- 
ence to  the  opinion  of  others,  farther  than  the  respectful  deference 
and  candid  examination,  which  are  due  to  the  opinions  of  the 
learned,  the  wise  and  the  good  who  have  made  this  epistle  their 
study."  ^nd  in  his  defence  he  says,  "  It  was,  further,  my  inten- 
tion in  preparing  these  notes,  not  to  be  influenced  in  the  interpret- 
ation by  a  regard  to  any  creed,  or  confession  of  faith,  whatever. 
I  make  this  frank  avowal,  because  it  is  the  deliberate  and  settled 
purpose  of  my  mind;  and  because  it  is  the  principle  by  which  I 
always  expect  to  be  governed." 

My  first  remark,  is,  that  no  man  more  admires  "decision  of 
character,"  independence  of  mind,  freedom  of  thought  and  action, 
than  I  do:  nor  would  any  reasonable  man  go  farther  in  resisting 
all  unjust  encroachment  upon  the  glorious  privilege  of  indepen- 
dent thinking.  Accordingly,  it  has  long  been  a  standing  rule  with 
me,  when  about  to  expound  a  text  or  context,  first  to  study  the 
naked  scripture,  generally  in  the  original,  without  note  or  com- 
ment ;  lest  the  weight  of  a  commentator's  opinion  should  bias  my 
own  judgment  in  the  sifting  of  terms.  Afterwards  my  rule  has 
been,  to  examine  authorities,  and  compare  them,  with  the  results 
of  my  own  cogitations.  This  rule  I  learned  at  the  feet  of  our 
Gamaliel,  and  twenty  years  practice  has  confirmed  the  opinion  of 
its  practical  wisdom.  But  this  latter  half  of  the  rule  is  founded 
on  the  principle  of 

My  second  remark,  viz.  Tliat  independence  of  mind,  does  not 
consist  in  supercilious  contempt  of  other  men's  opinions.  Real 
humility,  appears  to  me,  entirely  consistent  with  unflinching  in- 
dependence. To  possess  real  decision,  a  man  must  possess  clear- 
ness of  perception  and  accuracy  of  discrimination  :  for  truth  is  the 
foundation  of  this  quality.  It  is  the  soul's  perception  of  the  truth 
that  gives  promptitude  in  counsel  and  firmness  in  purpose.  If  a 
man,  without  this  perception,  assert  his  claim  to  decision  of  cha« 


18 

rarter,  he  mistakes  self-sufficiency  for  independence  of  mind,  and 
brute  obstinacy  for  the  highest  intellectual  attainment. 

3.  1  dissent  from  the  rule  as  laid  down  by  Mr.  Barnes  for  another 
reason,  viz.  that  every  man  is  bound,  by  the  highest  authority,  to 
interpret  scripture  in  consistency  with  scripture — "according  to 
theanalogy  of  the  faith."  Rom,  xii.  6.  No  man  is  at  liberty  to  take 
any  given  text,  and  construe  its  terms  according  to  tlicir  plain,  na- 
tural meaning,  irrespective  of  the  drill  and  force  of  the  writer. 
You  are  bound  to  look  at  the  train  of  his  thought  and  reasoning, 
and,  if  it  be  at  all  practicable,  without  an  utter  crucifixion  of 
language,  to  understand  his  terms  in  the  given  passage,  consist- 
entfy  with  that  train,  honesty  requires  yon  so  to  do.  To  do  other- 
wise is  to  "handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully."  But  I  am 
aware,  that  in  these  notes,  "  the  analogy  of  the  faith"  is  made  to 
mean  "  the  measure  offuith,''^  and  faith  is  made  to  mean  "  the  ex- 
truordinary  endoicment  bestowed  on  ihem  by  the  gift  of  prophecy," 
and  that  "  they  had  the  power  o^  using  their  prophetic  gifts  as  we 
have  the  ordinary  faculties  of  our  minds  ;  and  of  course  ot' abusing 
them  also."  And  hence  "the  propriety  of  regulating  this  office  by 
apostolic  authority."  (See  Notes,  p.  202.)  Now  it  appears  to  me, 
that  the  spirit  of  supernatural  revelation,  conferring  ^'extraordina- 
ry endowment,'''  it  is  not  at  the  prophet's  option  to  abuse.  Nor 
can  1  see  how  it  should  be  necessary,  for  one  prophet, — I  mean  a 
truly  inspired  man,  to  lay  down  restraining  rules  for  another.  A 
true  prophet,  supernaturally  inspired,  indeed  m.ay  prescribe  tests 
by  which  to  try  the  prophets;  but  where  the  Spirit  of  Cod  is  in  a 
man,  foretelling  events,  I  cannot  think  that  even  Balaam  can  go 
one  word  beyond  what  the  Lord  puts  into  his  mouth:  hence  this 
whole  interpretation  is  unfair.  It  does  violence  to  the  apostle's 
meaning  and  language.  It  is  contrary  to  the  "  analogy  of  the 
faith."  But  the  reason  why  this  is  preferred,  appears  at  llie  close. 
It  is  to  obviate  this  very  use  which  1  have  made  of  it — lest  it  should 
be  applied  "^o  systems  of  theology''^  and  demand  "  that  we  should 
interpret  the  Bible  so  as  to  accord  with  the  system" — contained 
in  itself  The  first  thing  to  be  done  toward  the  exposition  of  any 
piece  oi:"  writing  is,  to  read  it  all  over,  and  thereby  to  ascertain 
its  general  drift — its  grand,  leading  substance — its  system.  This 
ascertained,  we  are  to  be  guided  by  this  in  disposing  of  the  mi- 
nuter parts  of  its  detail.  Now  this  the  Presbyterian  church  has 
done.  This  every  minister  of  that  church  has  solemnly  declared 
in  the  face  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  he  has  done,  in  reference  to 
the  Bible.  This  declaration  he  has  made  in  his  ordination  vow.«. 
He  has  told  the  church,  that  he  has  examined  the  Bible — that, 
though  he  does  not  pnitend  to  understand  all  of  it,  in  all  its  minute 
j)arts  ;  yet,  that  he  has  arranged  in  his  own  mind,  its  grand  lead- 
ino"  thoughts — he  has  set  up  the  groat  land-marks  of  truth,  and 
now  he  solemnly  pledges  liiniself  to  b(!  guidcnl  by  these  in  his  sub- 
secjuent  researches.  This  pledge  is  jpst  and  reasonable;  and  he 
can  neither  be  a  just  nor  a  reasonable  interpreter  of  Scripture  who 


19 

will  wilhhold  such  pledge :  he  must  be  exposed  to  perpetual  danger 
of  handling  the  word  of  God,  if  not  deceitfully,  at  least  erroneous- 
ly. But  no  man  can  be  a  Presbyterian  minister  until  after  he 
has  given  such  pledge.  His  ordination  vow  embraces  the  confes- 
sion, as  containing  the  systems  of  doctrines  taught  in  the  holy 
Scriptures.  Now  1  contend  that  such  pledge  cannot  be  reconciled 
with  the  language  above  quoted.  Mr.  B.  professes  to  have  given 
what  he  supposes,  "  without  any  regard  to  any  theological  system," 
to  be  the  meaning  of  the  apostle.  Whereas  neither  he  nor  any 
other  man  has  any  right,  or  can  have  any  right  to  interpret  this 
particular  section  of  Scripture  without  any  regard  to  the  tiieologi- 
cal  system  laid  down  in  the  Bible.  It  is  right  to  make  the  ge- 
neral drift  of  scripture  bear  upon  particular  parts  and  mould  their 
interpretation  :  and  a  right  to  construe  them  "  without  any  regard" 
to  this,  would  be  a  right  to  do  wrong :  which  no  man  can  ever  pos- 
sess. "  1  mean  that  the  mould  should  be  first  formed"  in  general 
— it  is  formed  in  the  general  system  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
particulars  are  to  be  understood  accordingly.  The  workman  has 
no  right  to  chissel  any  one  stone  from  the  quarry  into  whatever 
shape  he  may  think  it  will  best  suit:  thus  proceeding,  the  temple  in? 
stead  of  coming  together  stone  to  stone,  without  "  the  sound  of 
hammer  or  axe  or  any  tool  of  iron,"  would  exhibit  a  scene  of  con? 
fusion  and  noise  not  excelled  by  Babel's  tower,  On  the  contrary, 
every  workman  that  is  worthy  to  lift  up  his  tool  in  the  prepara- 
tion  of  any  one  stone,  is  bound  to  shape  it  for  its  destined  position 
in  the  building.  He  must  be  directed  by  the  relative  position — 
the  analogy,  which  it  bears  to  the  vvhole  structure.  Moses  was 
bound  to  make  all  things,  even  to  the  minutest  pin,  according  to 
the  pattern  showed  him  in  the  mount.  And  every  expositor  of 
holy  scripture  is  bound,  in  common  honesty,  to  have  an  eye  to, 
and  to  be  influenced  by  the  system  of  doctrines  taught  in  the 
Bible.  Now  that  system  every  Presbyterian  minister  has  solemn- 
ly declared  to  be  set  forth  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  That  it  is 
thus  set  forth  in  explicit  terms — printed  in  a  distinct  book  by  it- 
self, surely  does  it  no  prejudice.  It  is  certainly  as  safe  there,  and 
as  available  to  each  individual,  as  though  it  were  unwritten  and 
imprinted  ;  but  remained  floating  among  the  less  fixed  and  stable 
conceptions  of  his  own  mind. 

Here  then  is  the  grand  paralogism  of  Mr.  Barnes  in  reference  to 
creeds.  He  admits  their  great  principle,  where  it  is  applied  to  a 
given  portion  of  Scripture  ex.gr.  to  this  epistle:  but  he  denies  the 
same  principle  in  its  application  to  the  whole  Bible  and  the  grand 
system  of  doctrines  therein  taught.  Hence  an  inconsistency 
amounting,  in  my  view,  to  a  direct  contradiction,  within  a  very 
short  space.  He  glories  in  having  been  free  from  the  entano-le- 
ments  of  all  creeds — having  proceeded  "  without  any  regard  to 
any  existing  theological  system." — "He  is  supposed  to  be  respon- 
sible not  at  all  for  its  impinging  on  any  theological  system  ;  nor  is 
he  to  be  cramped  by  any  frame-work  of  faith  which  has  been 


20 

reared  around  the  Bible."  And,  directly  in  the  teeth  of  these 
declarations,  he  says,  "  I  may  here  be  permitted  to  slate  ihat  I 
am  no  enemy  to  creeds  and  confessions.  Never  have  I  penned 
a  sentence  arrainst  them  ;  and  no  man  has  ever  heard  me  speak  in 
their  disparagement,  or  condemnation."  An  utter  disreo-ard  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith — a  boasted  recklessness  whether  he  otfends 
ag-ainst  its  doctrines  or  not,  is  not  speaking-  in  its  disparagement ! 
This  conduct  is  not  penning  a  word  against  it!! 

But  I  remark  farther,  that  into  this  paralogism  and  consequent 
self-contradiction,  he  has  been  led  by  a  correctly,  and  I  doubt  not, 
inadvertently  assumed  false  position;  viz:  That  the  Confession  of 
Faith  contains  a  system  of  human  dogmas,  and  not  the  system 
taught  in  the  holy  Scriptures.  For,  obviously,  if  the  truths  of  the 
Bible  are  binding  upon  the  conscience  of  its  interpreter,  they 
are  so  binding,  whether  they  are  trans  printed  into  another  book 
■or  remain  in  their  original  position.  And  if  in  the  Confession, 
they  are  the  truths  of  God's  word — the  system  of  doctrines  therein 
taught,  do  they  cease  to  bind  the  conscience,  because  of  their  local 
position  "?  Do  these  doctrines  become  mere  human  dogmas,  simply 
because  a  human  pen  has  transcribed  them  !  Or,  because  they 
are  exposed  in  a  varied  phraseology  !  Assuredly  the  Brother's 
objections  to  any  influence  whatever  from  the  Confession,  is  based 
..on  the  assumption,  that  its  truths  are  human,  not  divine — not  the 
truths  of  the  Bible,  but  the  dogmas  of  men.  This  is  the  proto- 
pseudos  of  all  those  wlio  have  unfortunately  received  into  their 
system  the  errorsof  anti-confessionism,  and  also  of  those  who  have 
inhaled  the  exhilerating  gas  of  free  inquiry,  decision  of  charac- 
ter, independence  of  thought  and  a  judgment  utterly  unbiased 
by  all  the  opinions  of  all  who  have  gone  before  them. 

4.  But  my  fourth  remark  is,  that  the  writer  of  these  notes  has 
mournfully  departed  from  his  own  rule.  I  do  not  say  designedly  : 
and  he  himself  admits,  that  "unconsciously"  he  may  havedeparted 
from  it;  for  he  does  not  "assume  a  freedom  from  bias,  and  from 
the  prejudice  of  opinion."  The  propriety  of  his  admission  will 
appear  to  his  reader,  upon  reflection  on  the  two  following  observa- 
tions. (1.)  Mr.  Barnes  could  not  have  written  the  following  sen- 
tences without  having  some  reference  to  some  confession  of  faith. 
"  Yet  men  have  not  been  satisfied  with  that. — [The  fact  of  Adam's 
fall,  and  man's  consequent  misery.]  They  have  sought  for  a  theory 
to  account  for  it.  And  many  suppose  they  have  found  it  in  the 
doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over  by  an  arbi- 
trary arrangement  to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and  that  they  are 
held  to  bo  responsible  for  a  deed  committed  by  a  man  thousands 
of  years  before  they  were  born.  This  is  the  theory ;  and  men 
insensibly  forget  that  it  is  mere  theory.'''' — (Notes  p.  10.)  Now  I 
ask,  where  did  the  Brother  find  this  "  theory  ]"  Who,  thxt  has 
read  the  Presbyterian  Confession,  can  be  at  a  loss  for  the  right 
answer]  How  then  could  he  say — "in  preparing  these  Notes,  I 
have  never  had  the  Westminster  Confcsson  of  Faith  before  me  7" 


21 

"  Nor  have  1  ever  framed  a  sentence  with  any  desire  or  intention 
that  it  should  in  any  way  depart  from  any  such  confession  I"  I 
am  g-lad  he  threw  in  the  saving  parenthesis,  "to  the  best  of  my 
recollection,"  and  I  am  truly  glad,  that  human  recollection  is  de' 
fective.  Again. — "  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain 
this  [the  connexion  between  Adam's  sin  and  our  ruin.}  *'^Tbe 
most  common  has  been,  that  Adam  was  the  representative  of 
the  race ;  that  he  was  a  covenant  head,  and  that  his  sin  was 
imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that  they  were  held  liable  to  punish-' 
ment  for  it  as  if  they  had  committed  it  themselves.  But  to  this 
there  are  great  and  insuperable  objections."  p.  128.  Again 
I  ask,  where  did  the  Brother  find  this  explanation,  which  he  re- 
jects. "  Has  it  no  respect  to  any  framework  of  faith  that  has 
been  reared  around  the  Bible  !"  Oh  my  Brother,  how  my  heart 
mourns  over  such  declarations  as  these;  fordost  not  thou  know,  that 
this  is  the  great,  leading,  distinguishing  feature  of  the  Calvinistic 
system  taught  in  the  standards  of  our  Church  1  Take  this  doc- 
trine out  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  where  is  the  sys- 
tem ?  Who  does  not  know,  that  this  doctrine  of  representation, 
covenant  headship  and  imputation,  is  the  very  doctrine  that  consti- 
tutes the  thread  of  its  unity,  and  makes  it  a  system  1  (2.)  My 
other  observation  is,  that  there  is  a  system  lying  back  in  the 
author's  mind,  whether  he  is  conscious  of  it  or  not,  a  model,  or 
frame  work  of  doctrine,  by  which  he  has  been  uniformly  influ- 
enced in  his  exposition.  I  mean  the  system  of  error,  summed  up 
in  these  ten  charges.  If  it  shall  appear  that  those  errors  are 
taught,  and  that  they  are  the  exact  opposite  of  the  system  set 
forth  in  our  standards ;  then  you  will  see,  that  the  expositor  came 
up  to  his  work  with  his  system  already  made — all  the  pieces  and 
parts  of  his  frame  fitted  and  jointed,  and  put  together  and  pinned 
fast :  yea,  and  weatherboarded  and  closed  in  completely :  so  thajr 
Paul  must  stay  within  its  pale,  and  only  put  out  his  head,  and  see 
and  be  seen,  and  speak  and  be  spoken  to,  by  and  through  the  propet 
apertures  and  openings  of  Brother  Barnes'  framework.  Now  Mr, 
Moderator,  it  would  be  curious  indeed,  if  this  were  true.  But  it  is 
true :  and  I  shall  prove  it  by  Brother  Barnes'  own  words.  He  had 
framed  his  opinions  before  he  came  to  this  work  of  writing  notes. 
Whether  prematurely  or  not,  is  not  mine  to  say ;  but  he  had 
framed  th-^m,  and  the  pertinacity  with  which  he  has  held  to  them 
shows  that  he,  at  least,  thought  they  were  correct-  He  says,  "I 
have  not  changed  my  views  materially  since  I  was  licensed  to 
preach  the  gospel."  Clearly  then  his  Notes  were  written  under 
the  modeling  influence  of  these  views.  But  further. — "  In  the  The- 
ological Seminary  at  Princeton,  my  views,  which  were  the  same  as 
now,  were  fully  known."  The  italics  are  mine.  They  are  designed 
to  impress  upon  your  mind  the  important  fact,  that  the  Brother's 
views,  his  opinions,  his  system  of  doctrines,  the  sentiments  which 
he  considered  true — his  frameworkjof  faith  were  the  same  when 
he  was  a  green  student  of  theology,  before  he  was  presumed  to 


22 

have  thoroughly,  fully,  and  laboriously  run  the  round  of  theoloorical 
studies,  tlie  same  as  now  !  Hence  you  perceive  that  under  this 
system  he  writes  his  Notes — within  this  framework  Paul  must 
dwell:  there  he  can  rest  only  on  the  Procrustes'  bed  of  Brother  Barnes' 
early  opinions  :  or,  if  he  venture  forth,  he  must  first  be  moulded 
into  tiie  annotator's  likeness  and  wear  his  livery. 

The  next  topic  in  this  "  defence,"  which  must  be  met,  is,  the 
laboured  attempt  to  open  a  wide  ^ate  and  a  broad  way  of  entrance 
into  the  Presbyterian  church.  This  church,  the  Brother  alleges, 
is  founded  on  liberal  principles.  It  knows  nothing  of  the  narrow- 
ness and  shrivelled  up  spirit  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians.  It  has 
adopted  on  the  contrary  a  broad  and  liberal  policy,  correspondent 
with  the  unlimited  breadth  of  our  land,  and  the  glory  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  Accordingly,  subscription  to  its  standards 
does  not  imply  belief  in  the  doctrines  taught  in  them,  except  in 
general.  It  contemplates  a  considerable  latitude  of  interpretation. 
A  man  in  entering  her  ministry  is  not  expected  to  embrace  all 
her  doctrines :  he  subscribes  '■'-for  substance  of  doctrine^  That 
is,  he  may  reject  many  particular  items  of  that  doctrine ;  but  he 
must  maintain  the  sentiments  of  the  Confession  in  the  main. 
This,  I  think,  is  the  substance  of  the  Brother's  doctrine  on  this 
point.     Now  for  the  substance  of  my  objections. 

1.  If  brother  Barnes  is  right  here,  then  he  may  well  ask 
"  What  are  the  standards  of  the  church?''''  And  I  throw  back  the 
question  in  tones  of  defiance;  let  him  or  any  other  man  tell  me 
"  What  are  the  standards  of  the  church  ?  If  you  may  reject  one 
doctrine,  as  non-essential,  may  not  I  reject  another  ]  May  not 
the  next  brother,  reject  a  third  ? — and  the  next,  a  fourth  ?  And  what 
will  be  left]  One  man  denies  the  eternal  Sonship ;  another  the 
personality  of  the  Spirit;  anotiier,  the  doctrine  of  predestination; 
another,  the  guilt  upon  Adam's  race  of  original  sin;  another,  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  active  obedience*;  another,  the  whole  doc- 
trine of  imputation,  the  covenants  of  works  and  of  grace!  I 
repeat  it,  What  is  lefl?  "  What  are  the  standards  of  the 
church  7"  Why,  sir,  is  it  not  as  clear  as  sunshine,  that  there 
neither  is  nor  ca7i  be  a7iy  standard  of  doctrine  at  this  rate.  Each 
man  claims  the  privilege  of  judging  for  himself  what  is  essential 
to  the  system — he  cannot  be  cramped.  What !  Shall  I  sacrifice 
the  independence  of  my  mind !  Shall  I  forego  the  glorious  privi- 
lege of  independent  thought!  Shall  I  cease  to  bean  original 
thinker,  and  trammel  up  my  capacious  soul  within  the  framework 
of  your  conceptions!  Shall  the  freemen  of  this  free  and  happy 
country,  not  have  the  privilege  of  thinking  for  themselves!! 
Shall  we  be  hurried  back  into  the  dark  ages  ! !  Shall  there  be  an 
end  of  free  inquiry  and  free  discussion  ! !  Will  the  high-toned 
spirit  of  American  Christianity  endure  this! ! !  Again,  I  repeat 
it. — If  the  doctrine  of  the  brethren,  who  advocate  the  boasted 
liberal  construction,  be  adopted,  there  is  an  end  of  constitutional 
order, 


23 

2,  Why  is  this  doctrine  contended  for  3  Why  has  Mr.  Barnes 
spent  so  much  time  in  attempts  to  cut  down  Jachin  and  Boaz, 
and  open  a  way  into  the  Presbyterian  church  wide  enough  for 
every  man  who  can  say,  I  subscribe  "for  substance  of  doctrinel" 
Is  there  not,  in  the  fact  of  his  thus  pleading,  evidence  that  he 
needs  considerable  latitude  of  interpretation  ]  So  it  seems  to  me. 
If  he  were  not  conscious  of  some  considerable  departure  from  the 
plain  doctrines  of  our  confession,  he  would  not  display  such 
anxiety  to  open  up  a  wide  door  of  entrance. 

3.  The  only  argument  of  any  plausibility,  adduced  to  prove 
that  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church  are  not  the  pub- 
lished constitution  absolutely,  but  this,  with  such  deviations 
from  its  plain  meaning  as  individuals  feel  constrained  to  make, 
is  the  argument  from  history.  You  will  keep  in  mind  that  we 
are  now  prosecuting  the  inquiry.  What  are  the  authoritative 
standards  ojthe  church?  It  is  a  question  of  fact.  Now  suppose 
the  question  were  asked,  What  is  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States]  Would  you  answer  this  by  referring  to  the  old  articles 
of  Confederation  1  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  great  princi- 
ples—  the  substance  of  political  doctrines — are  there  to  be  found. 
But  are  they  the  constitution]  So,  it  is  absurd  to  look  at  the 
occasional  acts  of  the  ecclesiastical  body,  in  its  forming  condi- 
tion ;  before  its  system  was  matured,  for  its  actual  constitution. 
Now  such  is  the  chief  argument  from  history  to  prove  the  lax 
doctrine.  The  "  Proviso"  to  the  adopting  act  of  the  Synod,  in 
1729,  is  quoted  as  proof  that  latitude  of  constructions  is  the  law 
of  the  church  in  the  nineteenth  century;  a  hundred  and  five  years 
afterwards:  It  runs  thus : — "  And  in  case  any  minister  of  the 
Synod,  or  any  candidate  for  the  ministry  shall  have  any  scruple, 
with  respect  to  any  article,  or  articles  of  said  confession;  he  shall 
in  time  of  making  said  declaration,  declare  his  scruples  to  the 
Synod  or  Presbytery;  who  shall  notwithslanding  admit  him  to 
the  exercise  of  the  ministry  within  our  bounds,  and  to  ministerial 
communion,  if  the  Synod  or  Presbyter}^  shall  judge  his  scruples 
not  essential  or  necessary,  in  doctrine,  worship,  or  government." 

Now  this  is  no  part  of  the  standards  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 
It  is  as  eifectually  superseded  by  subsequent  legislation,  as  the 
old  articles  of  confederation  are  superseded  by  the  present  consti- 
tution. On  May  21,  1788,  the  Synod  record  the  following 
minute,  viz.  "The  Synod  took  into  consideration  the  draft  of  the 
form  of  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
the  United  States  of  America.  And  having  gone  through  the 
same,  did,  on  a  review  of  the  whole,  ratify  and  adopt  the  said 
form  of  government  and  discipline,  as  now  altered  and  amended, 
as  the  constitution  of  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Presby- 
terian church  in  America.  And  recommended  to  all  their  judi- 
catures, strictly  to  observe  the  rules  laid  down  therein,  in  all 
ecclesiastical  proceedings.  Afid  they  order  that  a  correct  copy  be 
printed  ;  and  that  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  as  now 


24 

nllered,  be  printed,  in  full,  along  with  it,  as  making  a  part  of  the 
Constitution."  In  a  subsequent  part  of  the  same  minute,  the  rati- 
fication of  the  Directory  for  Worship,  and  amendment  of  the 
Larger  Catechism  and  ratification  of  it  and  the  Shorter,  are 
recorded.  And  these,  "  as  now  ratified''^  are  to  continue  to  be 
our  constitution  and  the  confession  of  our  faith,  unalterably ; 
unless  two  thirds  of  the  Presbyteries"  make  a  change.  In  a  still 
subsequent  part  of  this  minute,  the  Synod  publish  a  minute  of 
1764,  wherein  the  spirit  of  their  guardian  care  over  the  orthodoxy 
and  piety  of  their  mmisters  is  set  forth. — "If  any  society,  or  body 
of  men  are  known  to  be  of  erroneous  principles ;  or  to  be  lax,  or 
negligent,  as  to  the  orthodoxy  or  piety  of  tlwse  they  admit  into 
the  ministry;  in  such  cases  none  of  our  Presbyteries  are  obliged 
to  receive  or  employ  such  persons  as  gospel  ministers  or  proba- 
tioners, though  producing  fair  certificates,  and  professing  to  adopt 
our  confession."  And  in  1765,  the  Synotl  enjoin  the  examination 
of  a  foreign  minister  "to  obtain  satisfaction  respecting  orthodoxy 
and  piety;  and  not  to  receive  him  implicitly  on  a  certificate,  how- 
ever fair  and  regular,  together  with  his  general  profession  of 
adopting  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms.  But  if 
such  probationer,  or  minister,  shall  come  from  a  church  or  judi- 
cature, generally  suspected,  or  known,  to  be  erroneous,  or  lax  and 
negligent  with  respect  to  the  moral  conduct  or  piety  of  their 
candidates  or  ministers ;  or  if  they  shall  come  from  any  number 
of  ministers,  who  may  convene,  without  any  regular  constitu- 
tion (that  is  a  Congregational  Association)  merely  for  the  purpose 
of  licensing  or  ordaining,  in  such  case,  a  certificate  from  such 
a  judicature,  or  such  ordainers,  and  a  general  profession  of  the 
partv's  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  is  still  less  satisfactory." 
And  in  1784,  their  minutes  say  '*  The  Synod  in  order  to  guard 
the  churches  under  their  care  against  dangers  from  the  ad- 
mission of  ministers  or  probationers  of  unsound  principles,  do 
hereby  renew  their  former  injunctions."  From  these  quotations 
it  is  demonsirably  evident  that  this  adopting  act  of  1729  has  no 
more  to  do  with  the  constitution  of  our  church,  than  the  adopting 
act  of  tlie  church  of  Scotland  has.  The  whole  constitution  has 
been  revised  since  and  formally  ratified  and  adopted;  that  the  Sy- 
nod in  1764-5,  '84,  and  *88,  were  extremely  rigid  in  their  vigilance 
over  the  orthodoxtj  and  piety  of  their  ministers.  A  fair  and  full 
certificate  of  good  standing  from  a  foreign  church — yea  even  from 
acongregational  convention,  would  not  be  admitted  as  satisfactory  : 
no  not  even  when  the  person  bearing  it  made  a  general  profession 
of  adopting  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Catechisms."  No ! 
the  right  of  examination  was  claimed  and  exercised — and  this  "to 
maintain  orthodoxy  in  doctrine;  and  purity  in  practice."  Even  a 
congregational  minister,  with  clear  certificate  and  profession  of 
"adopting  the  Confession  of  Faitii,"  must  be  examined.  Does 
this  look  like  the  \a.^  interpretation  system?     Is  any  man  able  to 


25 

tfelieve  tliat  these  men  knew  any  thing-  about  adoption  "  for  sub- 
stance of  doctrine." 

Now  it  may  jn-ofit  to  inquire,  wherefore  this  waking  up  of  the 
church  to  a  jealousy  over  her  orthodoxy  at  this  junclurt?  ']  he 
answer  is  found  in  the  fact  that  Doctor  Witherspoon,  about  this' 
time  became  a  leading,  perhaps  it  wiJt  not  be  thought  insidious  to' 
!3ay,  the  leading  man  in  tiie  Presbyterian  church.  He  brought 
\Vith  him  trom  (despised)  Scotland  tlie  blood  and  spirit  of  John 
Knox,  in  1768.  And  in  1773  we  find  tlie  alarm  sounded  aiid 
the  churches  put  on  tlioir  guard  against  the  laxarian  doctrine. 
The  same  in  '74,  and  also  in  '84.  But  all  these  are  brought  up 
and  published  and  enforced  in  '88  when  Dr.  Witherspoon  was 
chairman  of  the  committee  for  revising'  the  directory  as  to  the 
mode  of  inflicting  censures  and  for  v^orship.  Indeed  it  cannot  be 
questioned  that  this  illustrious  Scotchman  did  more  than  any  other 
man  toward  mouldiiig  into  its  present  form  the  Constitution  of 
our  church.  It  will  therefore  let  tht  true  light  of  true  history 
in  upon  this  question,  to  quote  from  Dr.  Rogers'  funeral  sermon 
o^^er  this  great  man.     He  says, 

'*  The  church  of  Scotland  was  divided  into  two  parties,  with" 
respect  to  their  ideas  of  ecclesiastical  discipline.     The  one  wag^ 
willing  to  confirm  and  even   to  extend  the  rights  oi'  patronage 
(our  liberal  construction  brethren  too,  know  how  to   wield  this 
power)  the  other  wished,  if  possible,  to  arrogate,  or  at  least  limit 
them,  and  to  extend  the  rights  and  influence  of  the  people  in  the 
settlement  and  removal  of  ministers.     The  latter  were  zesrlous  for 
the  doctrines  of  grace  and  the  articles  of  religion  in  all  their  strict-'' 
riess^  as  contained  in  the  national  Confession  of  Faith.     The  for- 
mer were  willing  to  allow  a  greater  latitude  of  opinion;  and  they 
preached  in  a- style  that  seemed  to  the  people  less  evangelical,- 
and  less  affecting  to  the  heart  and  conscience,   than  that  of  their 
opponents.     In  tlieir  concern  otherwise  to  exempt  the  clergy  of 
their  party  from  the  unreasonable  effects  of  popular  caprice,  they 
too  frequently  protected  them  against  the  just  complaints  of  the 
people.     These  were  styled  moderate  men,  whtle  their  antagonists 
Were  distinguished  by  the  name  of  the  orthodox.     Dr.   Wither- 
spoon, in  his  church  politics,  early  and  warmly  embraced  the  side 
of  the  orthodox.     This  he  did  from  conviction,  and  sense  of  duty ; 
and  by  degrees,  acquired  such  an  influence  in  their  councils,  that 
he  was  considered  at  length  as  their  head  and  leader."     Now  it 
is  not  at  all  marvellous,  that  a  man  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
rigid,  strict,  orthodox  party,  in  that  church,  whence,  coiiff  ssedly 
we  have  derived  our  system;  when  .invited  once  and  again,  by  the 
utiited  voide  of  American  Presbyterians,  to  preside  over  the  only 
College  of  any  note  under  their  influence,  should   very  soon  ac- 
quire an  ascendency  in  the  American  churches  correspondent  to 
that  which  he  held  among  the  rigidly  orthodox  party  in  Scotland. 
And  such  undeniably  were  the  facts:- and  here  we  see  the  reason 
why  the  Synod  put  themselves  so  often  in  the  position  "to  main- 

o 


26     • 

tain  orthodoxy  in  doctrine,"  their  leader,  and  the  man  who  was 

appointed  to  open  the  first  General  Assembly  ever  held  in  Ame- 
rica, the  man  who  had  just  foug-ht  the  long  battle  of  orthodoxy  in 
{Scotland,  and  led  her  lorces  to  triumph  over  the  '•'•moderate  men,'''' 
who  was  '*  z.e:ilous  for  the  doctrines  of  grace  and  the  articles  of 
religion  in  all  their  slrictnoss,"  a.s  contained  in  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  this  man  was  a  leader  in  '88,  when  the  Constitution  was 
moulded  into  its  present  Ibim  and  adopted.  Now  I  ask,  is  it  cre- 
dible, that  the  victor  o{  moderation  in  Scotland  is  its  defender  in 
America?  Can  «>Ay  man  believe,  that  he  who  led  on  to  triumph  the 
rank  and  lile  of  those  who  "  were  zealous  for  the  doctrines  ol 
grace  and  the  articles  of  religion,  in  all  their  strictness,"  against 
the  hosts  of  those  who  "vvere  willing  to  allow  a  greater  latitude 
of  opinion,"  in  moulding  our  Constitution,  accommodated  it  to 
"  the  latitude  of  opinion"  plan  !  I' 

It  is  remarkable  here,  that  Brother  Banies  quotes  no aathorities  in 
favour  of  his  "very  wide  latitude,"  later  than  the  days  of  Presi- 
dent Davies,  long  before  the  present  Constitution  of  our  church 
was  formed,  until  1830.  Why  so?  Why  did  he  not  go  to  the  men 
who  constituted  really  the  convention  who  modelled,  altered,  and 
adopted  it,  to  inquire  after  its  meaning  1  Did  be  know  he  would 
meel  Dr.  Withcrspoon  there  J  Aye,  and  the  present  Dr.  Green] 
Now  if  I  wished  to  know  the  meaning  of  any  clause  in  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  I  should  not  run  back  to  the  days 
of  William  Penn,  nor  even  to  the  incipient  committees  that  cher- 
ished the  rising  revolution.  No:  I  should  go  to  the  very  age  of 
its  formation  and  interrogate  the  men  who  moulded  it  into  its  pre- 
sent shape.  Their  opinions,  if  certainly  attainable,  would  and 
should  have  chief  weight  in  putting  construction  upon  their  lan- 
guage. This  has  been  done  with  our  Constitution  ecclesiastical, 
and  the  result  I  leave  with  you. 

But  as  to  the  "  Proviso"  of  1729,  1  have  a  word  more.  Even 
supposing  it  binding  now,  (which  is  absurd,)  there  are  three 
things  required  in  regard  to  its  "  scruples"  of  objection  agamst 
the  Confession  of  Faith.  The  first  is,  that  they  are  scruples,  and 
in  order  to  admit  a  minister  into  the  church,  they  must  be  scru- 
ples— merely  the  2S8tii  part  of  a  pound  of  truth,  "not  essential 
or  necessary.''''  Secondly,  the  synod  or  presbytery ;  not  the  man 
who  brings  them,  is  to  weigh  them  :  they  "  shall  judge  his  scru- 
ples." Thirdly,  he,  who  has  them,  shall  not  conceal  them,  but 
shall  offer  them  to  the  weigher,  before  he  is  or  shall  be  "admit- 
ted to  the  exercise  of  the  ministry." — "  He  shall  [this  prescribes 
duty]  in  time  of  making  said  declaration,  declare  his  scruples." 
Now  let  us  a])ply  these  to  the  present  case.  First,  are  the  errors 
of  this  book  ot  Notes  mere  scruples — small  matters  ?  This,  by  a 
very  adroit  petitio  principii,  the  brother  assumes  throughout  his 
re-marks  here.  On  the  contrary,  the  prosecutor  presents  them  as 
of  vital  importance.  The  opinions  of  other  men  have  been  ad- 
duced to  the  same  effect.     The  wrongs  charged  d.xQ  fundamental. 


27 

They  are  not  small  d«ist  of  the  balance— they  are  not  the  scruples 
of  truth,  but  the  cwls,  and  the  tons.  Here  then,  Mr.  Moderator, 
is  a  gratuitous  assumption,  and  I  beg"  leave  to  invite  your  atten- 
tion to  the  fact,  that  on  this  gratuitmis  assumption,  brother  Barnes 
has  built  the  very  strongest  of  his  appeals  to  the  popular  ear,  and 
to  your  ear,  sir.  He  says  many  line  things  in  a  very  fine  style, 
about  liberality  of  sentiment,  freedom  of  thought,  slight  shades 
of  opinion,  the  folly  of  "  endeavouring  to  shake  man's  belief  by 
authority:  to  cramp  the  freedom  of  inquiry — to  place  every  man 
on  the  bed  of  Procrustes,"  until  really  I  and  you,  begin  to  feel 
indignant  at  the  man,  who  would  venture  to  arraign  such  a  liberal 
minded  brother  upon  some  scruple  about  mint,  annise,  and  cutr- 
min.  But  let  us  beware  of  the  unfounded  assumption.  It  is  not 
true  that  the  matters  at  issue  are  trifling  matters,  they  are  the 
essence  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  therefore  the  entire  plead- 
ing, in  this  most  popular  and  plausible  paragraph,  is  irrelevant — 
it  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  case.  Secondly — Did  the  Presby- 
tery of  New  Brunswick,  when  they  ordained  Mr.  Barnes  weigh 
his  scruples  against  the  Confession  and  admit  him,  believing  and 
acknowledging  that  they  were  mere  scruples — "  not  essential  or 
necessary  in  doctrine?''''  But  this  will  be  answered,  in  the  third 
point  Did  Mr.  Barnes  declare  his  scruples?  Did  he  offer  them 
to  the  weigher  to  be  weighed?  Did  he  frankly  tell  the  Presby- 
tery at  the  time^  that  there  were  some  little  matters  in  which  he 
could  not  exactly  agree  with  the  Confession  1  No,  sir !  nothing 
of  all  this.  And  yet  the  "  Proviso"  of  1729,  under  which  he  would 
shield  the  latitude  of  constructive  doctrine,  makes  it  his  duty- 
*'  he  shall  declare  his  scruples."  He  did  not  do  it,  and  conse- 
quently the  Presbytery  could  not  weigh  them  and  pass  them  as 
scruples.  On  this  point  I  speak  advisedly:  after  particular  in- 
quiry, I  cannot  find  that  any  such  declaration  was  made.  The 
most  I  can  find  is,  that  he  was  suspected  of  holding  erroneous 
opinions  on  the  principal  points  now  in  controversy.  And  Mr. 
Barnes  himself  seems  to  coincide  with  my  information-  "  Thus 
by  die  Presbytery  of  New  Brunswick,  by  which  I  was  licensed, 
they  were,  or  might  have  been,  fully  known."  *'Or  might  have 
been,"  clearly  admitting  that  they  were  not  by  him  openly  de- 
clared. How  then  can  he  plead  the  overshadowing  protection  of 
this  "  Proviso,"  when  he  did  not  put  himself  under  it  at  the  proper 
time  1  Had  his  present  views,  which  he  says  he  held  then,  been 
fully  made  known  to  his  Presbytery,  and  had  they  "judged  that 
his  scruples  were  not  essential  or  nece?sary  in  doctrine"  and  so 
recorded  it,  then,  indeed,  he  might  effectually  plead  their  own 
proviso  in  bar  of  their  prosecuting  him.  It  is  however  farotherwise; 
and  in  every  aspect  of  the  case  he  can  find  no  just  protection 
from  the  "  Proviso"  of  1729.  By  the  living  constitution — by  the 
law  as  it  is — must  he  and  every  other  minister  be' judged. 

The  deranged,  confused,  and  informal  manner  of  bringing  these 
charges  has  been  matter  of  loud  and  long  complaint.  The  brother 


28 

has  presented  this  complaint  so  often — tie  has  harped  ^ipon  it  eo 
much,  that  really,  Mr.  Moderator,  he  has  oriven  occasion  to  my 
growth  in  the  ^race  of  patiejice.  But  for  the  benevolence  whicli 
I  often  see  beaming  from  his  eye,  I  should  allow  myself  to  tliink, 
he  meant  to  provoke  to  something  else  than  to  love  and  good  works. 
But  "charity  thinketh  no  evil;"  I  will  therefore  put  the  best  con- 
struction U|K)n  this  reiterated  complaint.  I  will  suppose  he  really 
feels  embarrassed  by  the  manner — the  undigested  nature,  and  the 
mode  of  presentation  of  these  charges.     On  each  I  must  remark. 

*'  The  manner.''''  This  may  relate  either  to  the  circumstances 
attending  their  first  presentation  to  him,  or  to  the  mode  of  con- 
duct— tlie  spirit  displayed  by  the  prosecutor.  ]f  the  former,  I 
observe,  that  1  addressed  Mr.  Barries  by  letter  [as  published  in  his 
Defence]  before  I  presented  the  charges  to  the  Presbytery.  Now 
I  admit,  that  in  giving  a  man  a  choice  of  modes,  between  what,  ip 
civil  concerns,  is  called  an  amicable  suit,  and  a  suit,  the  first  no- 
tice of  which  is  an  officer's  visit,  I  did  throw  some  embarrassment 
in  his  way.  IJe  is  called  upon  in  that  letter  to  say,  w  hether  or 
not  he  will  cocrjply  with  my  earnest  wish,  to  make  it  an  amicable 
suit.  Wh.erever  tliere  is  a  choice,  and  especially  a  choice  of 
evils,  there  may  be  embarrassment.  But  it  appeared  to  me  every 
vvray  the  most  agreeable  to  Christian  kindness  to  lay  before  his 
mind  this  choice,  and  I  really  thoughi  his  mind  would  not  have  been 
much  embarrassed  in  the  choice.  1  did  certainly  think  that,  seeing 
the  thing  must  come,  he  would  have  let  it  come  in  the/orw  of  an 
amicable  suit,  as  I  was  determined  it  should  be  so  in  fact.  If 
manner  relates  to  niy  mode,  temper,  spirit,  I  have  nothing  to  say. 
Let  the  Presbytery,  and  the  whole  church,  and  the  world  itself, 
which  is  always  on  the  side  of  lax  construction  in  religion,  judge 
fron>  tile  facts.  If  the  award  shall  be,  that  in  this  whole  business 
I  have  not  violated  the  law  of  brotherly  kindness,  then  I  can  see 
how  this  very  thing  should  be  a  source  of  embarrassment.  If  the 
prosecution  was  against  me,  and  the  case  as  desperate  as  I  now 
believe  it  to  be,  1  think  I  can  imagine  hovy  kind  and  brotherly 
treatment  would  embarrass  me. 

"  The  undigested  nature  of  the  charges."  To  this  I  reply,  that 
all  men's  minds  are  not  cast  in  the  same  mould.  Men  will  differ 
aboqt  Ixodes  of  faith.  They  cannot  all  see  and  think  exactly  alike. 
What  appears  confusion  to  one  is  order  to  another.  If  a  man 
stands  with  his  face  toward  a  window  and  I  look  uptm  his  full,  front 
face,  and  you  u}X)n  his  side  face,  our  visions  will  be  quite  differ- 
ent, t  am  looking  in  i;.e  face  of  these  charges,  Mr.  Barnes  has 
only  a  side  view.  To  convince  yon,  that,  if  they  are  Cfude  and 
indigested,  it  is  my  fault  only  as  infirmities  of  nature  are  faulty, 
let  nie  give  you  a  history  of  the  manner  m  which  they  were  pre- 
pared. First,  then,  I  read  the  "  Notes"  through,  taking  notes  of 
exceptions  and  marking  the  pages  as  I  passed  along.  Then  I  re- 
inspected  the  exceptionable  pages,  with  the  utmost  carefulness. 
Then  I  ruled  off  a  foolscap  sheet  into  brgad  columns,  and  WfQtp 


29 

captions  of  erroneous  doctrines.  Then  I  arranged  the  exception- 
able pages  under  these  heads  of  exception.  Then  I  turned  in 
upon  them  the  little  share  of  analogical  talent  which  has  fallen  to 
my  lot,  to  discover  the  relative  positions  of  these  several  doctrines. 
In  this  labour  the  question  was  to  be  answered,  how  do  these  er- 
rors, positive  or  negative,  fit  into  one  another?  Having  settled 
this,  I  numbered  them  I,  II,  III,  &c.  If  Mr.  Barnes  can  see  no 
system  in  them,  I  know  not  how  to  help  him  out  of  his  embarrass- 
ment. Others  besides  myseif  have  read  them  since  he  did,  and  I 
have  not  heard  much  complaint  of  indistinctness,  or  irregularity 
or  confusion.  To  most  minds,  I  am  persuaded,  they  present  the 
idea  of  a  systematic  arrangement  tolerably  well  carried  out.  Per- 
haps this  is  the  very  feature  which  occasions  the  embarrassment. 
A  child  of  recent  birth  is  known  by  its  father,  more  readily  by 
its  dress  than  by  its  countenance.  Perhaps  the  parent  of  this 
child  is  unable  to  recognise  it,  for  the  simple  reason,  that  another 
hand  has  dressed  it. 

The  mode  of  presenlation,  "  is  exceedingly  perplexing."  "  He 
first  furnished  the  Presbytery  with  a  setof  charges  with  reference 
to  the  pages  of  my  book,  but  without  any  reference  to  the  sta^n-d- 
ards  of  the  church  or  the  Scriptures,  supposed  by  hinj  to  be  vio- 
lated. This  was  evidently  contrary  to  the  constitution  of  the 
church  as  expounded  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1824,  (Vol.  v. 
p,  219.") 

To  this  I  replj,  that  the  Constittclion  is  the  rule,  and  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly  has  no  power  to  add  to  or  take  from  it.  I  fully 
complied  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  It  will 
surely  not  be  maintained,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  that  the  m- 
cidental  remarks  made  by  all  the  General  Assemblies,  since  the 
days  of '89,  shall  all  form  a  part  of  the  Constitution;  so  that  if  a 
man  literally  follow  the  printed  rules  in  our  books  and  yet  be  ig- 
norant of  some  opinion  dropped  by  some  Assembly  fifty  years  ago, 
or  fifty  months,  and  of  course  not  be  governed  by  it,  he  shall  lose 
his  cause,  on  the  ground  of  unconstitutionality.  But  now  Mr^ 
Barnes'  reference  is  to  just  such  an  incidental  remark  of  the  As- 
sembly. It  is  not  even  a  formal  resolution.  It  is  a  mere  remark 
under  the  sixth  head  of  their  minutes  in  the  case  of  Craighead. 
They  had  condemned  Craighead  and  justified  the  synod,  and  of 
course,  secundum  artem^  they  must  censure  \\\e  synod  too.  Well 
they  say  "  There  was  a  great  deficiency  in  the  charges  preferred 
against  Mr.  Craighead,  as  it  relates  to  precision.  Ail  charges  for 
heresy  should  be  as  definite  as  possible."  [Mine  were  definite.] 
"  The  article,  or  articles  of  faith,  impugned,  should  be  specified," 
{so  were  mine,]  "  and  the  words  supposed  to  be  heretical,  shown 
to  be  in  repugnance  to  these  articles"  [That  is  obviously  in  the 
argument  of  the  cause,  and  this  was  done.]  If,  however,  tiie 
specifying  of  articles  and  the  showing  of  the  words  to  be  repug-- 
nant  to  them,  is  intended  here  to  m^n,  that  the  language  of  the 
Confession  and  the  words  supposed  to  be  heretical,  are  to  be  quoted 

3* 


30 

in  full  in  the  chnro^es  :  and  the  showing-,  to  be  their  comparison  ', 
then  the  curiosity  is  calh'd  tor,  of  the  indictment  embodying-  the 
charg-e.s,  the  law,  tlie  testimony  and  the  argument ;  nnrl  all  this 
before  tlie  conrt  order  a  trial !  But  this  pomt  is  unworthy  to  de- 
tain us,  for  tv.'o  reasons.  Because  the  incidental  expression  of 
the  Assembly's  opinion  is  no  amendment  of  the  constitution,  and 
because  Mr.  Barnes  was  fully  furnished,  about  three  months  be- 
fore the  tfial,  with  references  to  all  the  law  and  all  the  testimony 
in  his  case:  my  letter  containing  them  is  dated  April  11,  and  the 
trial  began  July  1.  Why  "  perplexity"  should  grow  out  of  this 
i  could  never  see — where  the  cause  of  embarrassment  lies  in  this 
procedure,  few  will  be  able  to  discover;  and  the  validity  of  "the 
only  inference  which"  tlie  brother  could  draw,  viz.  that  the  whole 
suliject  was  undigested  in  my  mind,"  I  leave  to  other  logicians  to 
examine  into.  Mr,  Barnes  hal  stated  in  Presbytery,  that  he  should 
]}C  guided  by  the  above  construction  of  the  Assembly  of  18*24;  and 
Jest  he  should  make  a  difficulty  of  that  and  prevent  a  trial,  I,  by 
concession,  supplied  him  with  all  the  references,  eighty  days  be- 
fore the  trial.  My  "only  inference"  was,  that  the  perplexity  and 
embarrassment  arose  out  of  the  intrinsic  difficulties  of  the  case. 

Three  retnarks  are  yet  necessary  before  we  proceed  to  the 
.charges  in  detail.  The  first  is,  that,  in  this  discussion.  Brother 
Barnes  will  hear  observations  upon  his  book,  which  cannot  prove 
to  hmi  as  the  Jovelmess  of  a  song  or  the  skilful  touches  upon  an 
instrument  It  is  obvious  at  a  glance,  that  many  things  must  be 
said  not  at  all  complimentary.  He  therefore  will  see  the  necessity 
pf  his  remembering  two  things,  viz :  that  he  is  the  author  of  these 
Notes  and  that  I  am  his  prosecutor,  having  them  for  witness.  Now 
an  author  is  sup])Dscd  to  have  some  degree  of  interest  in  his  work, 
beyond  that  felt  by  other  men.  It  is  the  child  of  his  own  bosom. 
Li pon  it  he  ha?  "  bestowed  many  an  anxious,  a  prayerful,  and  pleas- 
s:int  hour."  "They  are,  he  continues,  the  result  of  much  deliberate 
attention."  They  have  occupied  his  hours  of  leisure,  his  moments 
of  retirement;  vvFien  a  busy  world  has  been  shut  out.  Exhausted, 
and  perhaps  chafed  with  the  toils  of  a  laborious  life,  and  his  heart 
f^ickened  in  contemplating  the  follies  and  vanities  and  wayward- 
ness with  which  he  has  necessarily  come  in  contact,  in  attendino- 
to  the  out-dobr  business  of  a  weighty  charge,  how  oflen  has  he  re- 
tijrned,  with  delight,  to  the  nursery,  to  beguile  his  spirit  away 
IVom  perplexing  cares,  by  an  hour's  toying  with  the  play- 
thing ()f  his  bosom  !  and  how  often  has  the  warm  heart  kindled  in 
parental  slon{e,  as  it  hung  in  admiring  fondness  over  the  bosom's 
witching  idol]  Lft  no  unhallowed  foot  intrude  into  this  sacred 
place,  lift  no  uninterested  heart  presume  to  judge  the  weakness 
of  this  fond  interview.  Let  Agesilaus  enjoy  the  sports  of  his  nurse- 
ry unujolnsted.  To  this  every  parent's  heart  responds  a  hearty 
amen.  But  still,  the  son  of  Agesilaus  may  aspire  to  be  king  of 
Sparta,  and  hayirjg  come  forth  into  public  life,  he  must  expect  to 


31 

be,  as  other  men,  liable  to  arrest  and  cross  examination  as  a  wit- 
ness in  conit.  What  1  ask  is,  that  the  parent,  durinjj'  the  progress 
of  tills  examination,  should  remember  his  relations  and  mine. — 
Tiiey  arc  quite  ditlerent  and  involve  different  feelings.  Now  these 
feelnigs  ought  to  be  respected  severally:  and  it  is  the  fixed  pur- 
pose of  my  mind  to  pay  all  due  deference  to  them.  Tliey  shall 
not  be  wounded  except  where  justice  to  the  cause  of  truth  re- 
quires the  sacrifice.  There  shall  be  no  wanton  sporting  with  them, 
and  I  have  confidence  in  the  Brother's  good  sense,  which  will 
prompt  him  to  make  all  due  allowance  for  the  difference  of  our 
relative  positions. 

The  second  remark  relates  to  the  nature  of  these  charges,  as  a 
system  of  error,  in  opposition  to  a  system  of  truth.  Any  and  every 
mind  is  liable  to  fall  into  insulated  and  detached  error;  but  only 
minds  of  a  philosophic  mould  are  capable  of  erring  systematically. 
Now  there  is  a  vast  difference  between  the  random  gun  of  the  roving 
Indian  and  the  scientifically  constructed  and  systematic  battery  of 
the  European  engineer — between  the  brush-wood  of  Canada  and  tlie 
fortress  of  Namur — between  Black  Hawk  and  the  Duke  of  Marlbo- 
rough. Where  there  is  no  cultivated  talent  to  form  a  system,  there 
can  be  little  danger  from  error.  Hence  the  fact,  well  known,  but  enig- 
matical— at  first  sight  strange,  almost  to  incredibility,  but  yet  not 
anomalous — the  fact,  that  every  man  who  has  ever  disturbed  the 
church,  by  the  introduction  of  erroneous  doctrines,  has  been  a  man 
of  talent.  No  obscure  individual  doing  business  in  the  country  on 
a  small  capital,  by  his  failure  in  business,  can  produce  a  great  con- 
cussion in  the  mercantile  world.  No  errorist  of  slender  talent, 
incompetent  to  throw  his  errors  into  a  systematic  form,  can  ever 
do  much  harm.  Standing  insulated,  as  individual  foes  in  an  ene- 
my's country,  his  errors  are  easily  cut  off  in  the  detail.  Whereas, 
if  he  had  talent  to  organize  them  into  solid  bands,  to  run  out  regu- 
lar lines  and  construct  his  fortress  by  the  rules  of  art,  they  would 
become  formidable.  Let  it  not  then  be  pleaded  in  bar  of  this  prosecu- 
tion, that  Brother  Barnes  is  a  gentleman  of  talent — that  his  congre- 
gation is  influential — his  position  in  the  church  commanding. — 
Why,  obviously,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  it  were  not  so,  such  a  prosecu- 
tion would  be  the  height  of  folly.  These  are  the  very  circum- 
stances which  demand  it  and  justify  it.  The  pastor  of  Morristown 
church  might  have  preached  these  doctrines  all  his  days,  within 
his  own  narrow  sphere  of  operation,  and  it  might  perhaps  never 
have  become  the  unpleasant  duty  of  any  man  to  prosecute  him.* 
But  not  so  the  minister  of  the  metropolitan  church.  Not  so  the 
author  of  three  or  four  popular  volumes  having  a  wide  circulation 
among  the  youth  of  our  connexion.  Not  so  the  consolidation  of 
error  into  a  system     Then  it  has  become  a  formidable  matter. — 

*  This  was  written  before  I  knew  ariiy  thing  aljout  the  Mprristovvn 
resolutions. 


32 

Itfl  batteries  may  be  difficult  to  silence  ;  its  fortress  the  permanent 
abodes  of  hostility.     1  repeat  the  thought — who  ever  hc^ard,  in  the 
church's  history,  of  a  dangerous  erroriet  that  was  not  a  man  of 
talents?     But  there  is  another  shade  of  this  thought.     Something 
more  than  talent,  is  necessary  to  answer  the  epithet  davgcrons  Xv 
an  errorist,  especially  during  his  own  life.     If  a  man  of  bad  moral 
character;  or  even  of  doubtful  religious  character,  shall  publish 
erroneous  sentiments,  even  well  digested  and  systematically  ar- 
ranged, who  will  believe  them  1     Will  not  the  blot  upon  the  man, 
pass  over  to  hi.-  system,  and  condemn  it]     Clearly  then,  reputa- 
tion, as  well  a;>  lulent,  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  dangerous  er- 
rorist.    Now  W(!  have  a  good  illustration  of  this  remark,  in  both 
its  aspects,  in  tho  author  of  a  new  heresy  in  the  fourth  and  begin- 
ning of  the  fifth  century.  Few  men  in  any  age  stood  higher  in  repu- 
tation for  talents,  learning  and   piety,  than  Pelagius  the  Briti.sh 
Monk.     He  had  travelled  extensively,  visiting  a  great  numl)er  of 
monasteries,  cultivating  acquaintance  with  the  learned  and   the 
pious,  and  extending  the  sphere  of  his  information  and  at  the  same 
time  of  his  influence.  "Augustine,"  says  Mosheim,  "acknowledges 
that  he  had  made  great  progress  in  virtue  and  piety,  that  his  life 
was  chaste  and  his  manners  blameless."  Speaking  of  him  and  his 
friend  Celestius,  Milner,  depending  upon  Jansenius'  account  from 
Augustine,  says  "  They  always  maintained  a  character  of  fair  and 
decent  morals."     And  of  Pelagius,  he  says,  "Augustine  owns  his 
reputation  for  serious  piety  to  have  been  great  in  the  christian 
world."     And  again,   "Augustine  allows  the  genius  and  capacity 
of  both  these  men  to  have  been  of  the  first  order."     The  author  of 
"  the  early  history  of  Pelagian  ism"  in  the  Biblical  Repertory,  who 
doubtless  consulted  authorities^  far  beyond  any  within  my  reach 
at  present,  confirms  these  statements.    Here  then  is  "genius  and 
capacity  of  the    first  order,"   "  great  progress   in    virtue    and 
piety,"  "a  life  chaste  and  manners  blameless."   But  did  all  these 
constitute  a  reason,  why  the  opinions  of  this  great,  and  virtuous, 
and  pious  man,  should  not  be  arraigned,  and  himself  censured  1 
No,  sir,  these  were  the  very  reasons  why  it  became  imperiously 
necessary  to  condemn  them  and  him,  for  their  sake.     The  truth 
of  God   is   of  more  value  than  the  fair  fame  of  any  man.     If, 
therefore,  it  shall  be  found  that  this  book  of  Notes  bears  the  mark 
of  talent,  in  the  fact,  that  its  erroneous  doctrines  are   linked 
together  into  a  connected  system,  so  that  a  logical  mind  falling 
into  one   of  its  errors,  will  be  led  necessarily  to  embrace  the 
whole,  then  you  will  see  the  importance  of  firmness  and  decision 
in  the  condemnation  of  one  and  all  of  them.     Moreover,  you  will 
observe,   that  less  force   of  evidence  is  necessary  to  establish 
against  an  author,  a  particular  sentiment,  when  it  belongs  to  and 
forms  a  part  of  a  system  (if  the  other  parts  are  fully  proved)  than 
would  be  requisite  to  establish  the  same  sentiment  if  it  stood 
alone.     This  principle  will  not  be  controverted,  and  is  here  men- 
tioned,  because  it  will  be  referred  to  in  the  progress  of  the  case. 


33 

My  third  remark  regards  the  right,  on  the  part  of  the  accysed, 
io  explain  his  own  language.  A  utters  words  wliich  give  offence 
toB:  B  complains  that  he  has  been  insulted  and  traduced;  his 
character  has  been  vilified.  A  denies  any  intention  of  inflicting 
•such  a  wound,  affirms  that  his  language  has  been  misunderstood, 
and  asks  the  privilege  of  explaining.  Shall  it  be  granted]  Cer- 
tainly, as  a  privilege  it  ought  to  be  conceded ;  and  his  explana- 
tion, if  satisflictory,  ought  to  be  accepted.  But  then  you  will 
observe:  A  asked  privilege,  he  did  not  Jem  and  a  right ;  for  he 
had  no  right  to  demand.  B  conceded  a  privilege,  for  he  could  not 
surrender  the  right  of  self-preservation.  And  further,  the  expla- 
nation must  be  satisfactory,  or  B  cannot  accept  it.  Now,  of  this 
satisfactoriness  who  is  to  be  the  judge  1 — A  or  B  ?  The  latter  un- 
<]uestionably.  But  if  B  remains  convinced,  that  the  words  uttered 
were  insulting  and  injurious;  can  he  accept  the  explanation? 
Assuredly  not.  What!  not  accept  an  explanatifin,  when  the  man 
assures  you  he  meant  no  harm  !  Certainly  not,  when  he  did  harm. 
I  have  nothing  to  do  with  his  intentions.  Well,  but  won't  you 
lake  his  apology  and  forgive  the  injury  ?  Oh  !  that 's  quite  a  dif- 
ferent matter.  An  apology  and  forgiveness — confession  of  fault 
and  pardon — this  language  implies  an  abandonment  of  the  origi- 
nal ground  A  took.  Now  he  asks  pai'don,  then  he  denied  having 
^iven  any  offence.  If  brother  Barnes  shall  come  forward  with  an 
apology  ;  if  he  shall  tell  the  church,  that  he  has  offended  in  teach- 
ing (?oc^ri}jcs  contrary  to  her  standards;  oh,  how  gladly  will  she 
■throw  open  her  arms  to  receive  him  ;  and  how  delightful  will  be 
her  duty  to  forgive!  But  if  he  come  forward  with  an  explana- 
tion—affirming that  he  has  been  misunderstood — he  didn't  mean 
so — then  he  denies  the  offence,  and  adds  an  insult  to  the  person's 
injury.  He  tells  the  injured, — the  torn,  and  lacerated,  and  bleed- 
ing church,  that  she 's  a  fool  and  does  not  nnderstand  language. 
If  he  aver  that  he  has  modified  some  of  his  objectionable  phraseo- 
logy, and  at  the  same  time  state  that  he  has  changed  not  a  prin- 
ciple of  his  doctrine,  he  superadds  contempt  to  insult  and  injury. 
He  in  substance  tells  her,  you  are  too  stupid  to  understand  lan- 
g'uage,  but  not  to  take  offence  at  terms:  the?e  bug-bear  words  I'll 
remove  out  of  your  way,  lest  you  may  be  frightened  again  by 
them  ;  the  sentiments,  however,  which  I  shall  leave  are  precisely 
the  same. 

But  the  case  is  still  stronger  in  judicial  process.  A,  is  on  trial 
for  the  utterance  of  certain  words  containing  (as  is  alleged)  a 
slander  upon  the  character  of  B.  The  truth  of  the  libel  is  admit- 
ted, or  proved — A,  did  utter  the  words,  but  he  puts  in  a  plea  of  justi- 
fication. He  affirms  that,  taken  in  their  plain  and  true  sense, 
they  contain  no  slander.  Now  who  is  to  judge  of  their  meaning? 
Is  it  A  !  or  B  ]  or  the  court?  I  aver,  Mr.  Moderator,  there  is  not 
a  man  of  common  sense,  who  can  hesitate  a  moment  on  this 
question.  The  judges,  and  not  either  of  the  parties  are  to  judge. 
The  jury  must  decit^e  what  the  language  mejjns.     They  are  not 


34 

bound  to  take  A's  present  explanation,  and  foist  that  into  the  libel 
and  then  judge !  They  are  bound  by  their  oath  not  to  take  his 
present  explanation,  but  to  say  whether  the  language  uttered  con- 
tains a  slander. 

New,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  press  this  remark  upon  your  considera- 
tion, because  I  am  confident  that  in  many  of  these  charges,  bro- 
ther Barnes  can  set  up  no  other  defence  but  ex-planation.  He 
will  claim  the  privilege  of  explaining  away  the  obvious  meaning 
of  terms,  and  thus  of  forcing  upon  you  a  construction,  of  which 
you  would  never  have  thought,  but  for  the  perfection  to  which 
the  art  of  eating  back  words  has  arrived,  in  these  days  of  improve- 
ment. To  the  power  of  explanations,  who  can  set  limits,  after 
the  recent  illustrious  attempt  to  prove,  that  the  free-will  doctrine 
of  the  moderate  Arminian,  or  old  semi-Pelagian  school,  is  con- 
tained in  the  Westminster  Confession ! 

We  come  now  to  these  charges;  and  the  simple  questions  on 
each  are  three  in  number,  viz.  1.  Is  this  doctrine  taught  (or 
denied)  by  brother  Barnes  in  the  passages  cited?  2.  Is  it  con- 
trary to  the  Confession  of  our  Faith,  &c.  ?  3.  Is  it  contrary  to  the 
Bible  1 

CHARGE  I. 

Mr.  Barnes  teaches  "  That  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary  action." 

Now  it  would  greatly  relieve  and  shorten  this  discussion,  if  he 
would  expressly  admit  or  explicitly  deny.  Which  does  he  do  ] 
Examine,  critically,  all  he  has  said  on  the  subject,  and  see  how 
he  comes  up  to  the  question;  Do  you  teach  this  doctrine?  He 
gives  no  answer.  You  cannot  tell  whether  he  admits  or  denies. 
No  man  can  tell.  His  whole  answer  is  equivocal.  He  does  not 
meet  the  question. 

The  relative  value  of  this  charge  may  appear  inconsiderable. 
It  is  nearly  allied,  however,  to  more  important  errors.  If  man  has 
no  sin  upon  him  legally,  for  which  he  is  punishable,  prior  to  the 
period  of  moral  agency  or  voluntary  action,  then  as  we  shall  see, 
our  Confession  is  in  error>  But  if  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary 
action,  and  man  is  not  liable  to  penal  evil  but  as  he  is  a  sinner,  so 
charged  in  law ;  then  it  will  follow,  that  prior  to  voluntary  action, 
he  cannot  be  a  sinner:  original  sin  he  has  none.  So  that  the 
maintenance  of  this  doctrine  is  a  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  origi- 
nal sin.  That  he  teaches  it,  see  "  Notes"  p.  249  :  In  all  this,  and 
in  all  other  sin,  man  is  voluntary."  Here  is  language  too  plain  to 
be  misunderstood  or  explained  away :  it  affirms  the  very  point  to 
be  proved.  Voluntary  action  is  necessary  to  sin  in  man.  It  will 
surely  not  avail  to  assert  "that  its  design  was  not  to  teach  any 
thing  about  the  doctrine  of  what  is  commonly  called  original 
sin" — It  does  teach  something — it  denies  that  doctrine.  It  is  a 
general  proposition, — the  fifth  in  numerical  order.  If  the  sole 
object  was,  to  show  that  in  moral  actions,  man  is  voluntary  and 
not  compelled  like  a  mill-wheel,  that  object  would  have  been 
attained  without  generalizing  so  as  to  deny  original  sin.    The 


35 

idea  of  compelling  a  voluntary  agent  is  an  absurdity,  and  need 
not  detain  us. 

Proof 2.  p.  123.  "There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they 
[men]  are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  his 
[Adam's]  sin,  without  participation  of  their  own,  or  without  per- 
sonal sin,  any  more  than  there  is,  that  they  are  approved  by  the 
work  of  Christ,  or  held  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  em- 
bracing his  offer,  and  receiving  him  as  a  Saviour."  Here  per- 
sonal transgression — voluntary  action  on  their  part,  must  precede 
the  possibility  of  condemnation  to  eternal  death — or  being  held 
guilty  of  Adam's  sin.  Prior  to  voluntary  action,  there  is  no  lia- 
bility to  condemnation — no  guilt.  Comment  here  is  unnecessary, 
but  you  will  bear  with  a  remark:  and  in  making  it,  I  wish  to 
excite,  in  the  Brother  accused,  a  salutary  fear ;  and  do  not  intend 
to  insinuate  that  he  is  a  thorough  Pelagian.  I  know  that  here- 
siarch  held  doctrines  which  this  brother  abhors.  But  in  one  or 
two  points  of  his  heresy,  our  brother  is  with  him;  and  my  fear, 
which  I  am  anxious  to  transfer  to  his  bosom,  is,  that,  as  a  consist- 
ent reasoner,  he  cannot  hold  the  ground  which  now  he  does  hold 
in  common  with  that  ancient  disturber  of  the  church's  peace, 
without  following  him  in  other  dangerous  positions.  The  remark 
is,  that  the  argument  of  the  above  quotation  is  borrowed  from 
Pelagius  ;  not  indeed,  I  suppose,  immediately,  but  really.  It  is 
his  precise  argument,  and  how  nearly  in  his  words,  you  shall 
judge.     Pelagius  says : 

"  If  Adam's  sin  hurt  those  who  are  not  guilty,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  profits  those  who  believe  not."     Milner  II.  370. 

The  only  difference  between  this  argument  and  brother  Barnes* 
is,  that  it  is  more  pointed  and  pithy,  because  less  burdened  with  ver- 
biage. It  is  the  same  precise  argument.  Now,  ought  not  a 
Presbyterian  minister  to  be  alarmed,  when  he  finds  himself  inad- 
vertently, (if  it  so  be,)  using  the  same  argument  with  an  acknow- 
ledged heretic,  and  for  the  same  purpose  1  Can  any  thing  possi- 
bly prove  more  conclusively  unity  of  doctrine?  But  I  have  more 
of  the  same. 

"  How  can  a  man  be  considered  guilty  by  God  of  that  sin  which  he 
knows  not  to  be  his  own  ?  for  if  it  is  necessary,  it  is  not  his  own ;  but 
if  it  is  his  own,  it  is  voluntary;  and  if  voluntary,  it  can  be  avoided." 
Pelagius,  as  quoted,  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  II.  p.  102. 

Take  in  connexion  with  this.  Proof.  4,  p.  124,  "  As  the  work  of 
Christ  does  not  benefit  the  race  unless  it  is  embraced,  so  does  not 
the  reasoning  of  the  Apostle  lead  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the 
deed  of  Adam  does  not  condemn,  unless  there  be  some  voluntary 
act  on  the  part  of  each  individual?" 

"If  Adam's  sin  hurt  those  who  are  not  guilty,  the  righteousness  of 
Clirist  profits  those  who  believe  not." 

I  have  placed  these  last  two  quotations  in  juxtaposition,  that 


36 

their  substantial  identity  might  be  seen  at  a  glance.  The  righ- 
teousness of  Christ  docs  not  profit  the  sinner,  until  he  believtei 
says  Mr.  B.,  thorofbre  the  sin  of  Adam  does  not  hurt  the  sinner 
until  he  voluntarily  transgresses.  The  doctrine  of  both  is,  that 
there  is  no  liability  to  penal  evil,  but  in  consequence  of  voluntary 
action,  and  "i)reviously  to  moral  agency,  there  is  nothing  in  man 
[nothing  moral — no  moral  character,]  but  that  which  God  created 
in  him."     Pclagiiis,  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  II.  p.  105. 

Again:  "Children,  in  as  much  as  they  are  children,  never  carr 
be  guilty,  until  they  have  done  somethmg  by  their  own  proper 
will."  Julian,  an  intimate  friend  of  Pelagius,  and  advocate  of  his 
doctrine,  as  quoted  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  11.  p.  l03. 

Proof  8,  \).  192.  "They  [Jacob  and  Esau,]  had  done  nothing 
good  or  bad,  and  where  that  is  the  case,  there  can  be  no  charac- 
ter, for  character  is  the  result  of  conduct.  (2.)  That  the  period 
of  nnjral  agency  had  not  yet  commenced."  The  doing,  the  vo- 
luntary agency  is  necessary  to  character.  Prior  to  this,  there  is 
no  sin  to  expose  to  punishmerrt.  When  this  voluntary  action 
occurs,  it  will  be,  he  admits,  sinful,  and  then,  but  not  till  then,- 
are  they  sinners.  Whether  the  point  is  proved,  I  leave  with  youy 
adding  only,  that,  brother  Barnes  docs  not  say,  "  1  deny  that  I  teach 
it." 

Let  us  attend  for  a  moment  to  the  standards.  Confession,  chap, 
VI.  5.  "This  corruption  of  nature,  during  this  life,  doth  remain 
in  those  that  are  regenerated :  and  although  it  be  through  Christ 
pardoned  and  mortified,  yet  both  itself  SLud  all  the  motions  thereof 
are  truly  and  properly  sin.  6.  Every  sin,  both  original  and 
actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of  God,  and 
contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the 
sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  curse 
of  the  law,  and  so  made  subject  to  death,  with  all  miseries,  spiri- 
tual, temporal,  and  eternal."  Larger  Catechism,  Questicn  27.- 
"We  are  by  nature  ciiildren  of  wrath,  bond  slaves  to  satan,  and 
justly  liable  to  all  punishments,  in  tliis  world  and  that  which  is  to 
cortie."  Shor.  Cat.  "All  mankind  by  their  fall  lost  conmnmion 
with  God,  are  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and  so  made  liable  to 
all  the  miseries  of  tliis  life,  to  death  itself,  and  to  the  pains  of  hell 
forever." 

On  these  a  remark  or  two.  1.  This  corruption  of  nature  is' 
itself  sin,  "  as  well  as  all  the  motions  thereof"  2.  This  corrup- 
tion of  nature,  wiiicli  is  sin,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt 
upon  the  sinner.  It  is  not  said,  his  voluntary  action  alone  brings 
guilt;  but  their  fall  placed  them  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  and 
exposed  them  to  death  and  hel!  forever.  No !  says  Mr.  B.,  all 
mankind  are  not  under  his  wrath  and  curse,  by  their  fall ;  they 
must  first  act  voluntarily,  and  then,  but  not  until  then,  are  they 
liable  to  the  y)ains  of  hell. 

AVhat  say  the  Scriptures'!  Ep.  ii.  8.  "  And  were  by  nature  the 
children  of  wrath."     Rom.  iii.  19.  "  That  all  the  world  may  be- 


37 

Come  guilty  before  God."  Psalm,  ii.  5.  "  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity 
and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  These  passages  cannot 
be  turned  aside.  They  prove  incontestibly,  that  man  is  a  sinner 
independent  of,  and  prior  to,  his  voluntary  action,  and  therefore, 
that  "all  sin  does  not  consist  in  voluntary  action."  Farther 
proofs  on  this  head  are  reserved  until  a  future  occasion ;  because, 
so  intimately  connected  are  those  errors,  that  they  are  jointed 
into  each  other,  so  that  the  evidence  on  one  often  answers  for 
others.  All  that  will  be  adduced  to  show  the  guilt,  i.  e.  the  lia- 
bility of  man  to  punishment  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  will  be 
good  on  this  point.  For,  obviously,  if  the  infant  human  being, 
prior  to  voluntary  action,  is  liable  to  penal  evil,  it  must  be  viewed 
by  the  holy  Governor  of  the  universe  as  under  sin. 

CHARGE  II. 

-  Mr.  Barnes  affirms,  "  That  Adam  (before  and  after  his  fall,) 
was  ignorant  of  his  moral  relations  to  such  a  degree,  that  he  did 
not  know  the  consequences  of  his  sin  would  or  should  reach  any 
farther  than  to  natural  death." 

Proof,  p.  115.  "If any  inquiry  be  made  here  how  Adam  would 
understand  this,  [the.  threatening  of  death,]  Ireply,  tliat  we  have 
no  reason  to  think  he  would  understand  it  as  referring  to  any 
thing  more  than  the  loss  of  life  as  an  expression  of  the  displeasure 
of  God.  Moses  does  not  intimate  that  he  was  learned  in  the  na- 
ture of  laws  and  penalties,  and  his  narrative  would  lead  us  to  sup- 
pose, that  this  was  all  that  would  occur  to  Adam.  And  indeed 
there  is  the  highest  evidence  the  case  admits  of,  that  this  was  his 
understanding  of  it.  For,  in  the  account  of  the  infliction  of  the 
penalty,  after  the  law  was  violated,  in  God's  own  interpretation 
of  it,  in  Gen.  iii.  19,  there  is  still  no  reference  to  any  thing  fur- 
ther. "  Dust  thou  art,  and  unto  dust  thou  shalt  return."  Now 
it  is  incredible  that  Adam  should  have  understood  this  as  referring 
to  what  has  been  called  "  spiritual  death,"  when  neither  in  the 
threatening,  nor  in  the  account  of  the  injfliction  of  the  sentence, 
is  there  the  slightest  recorded  reference  to  it.  Men  having  done 
great  injury  in  the  cause  of  correct  interpretation,  by  carrying 
their  notions  of  doctrinal  subjects  to  the  explanation  of  words  and 
phrases  in  the  Old  Testament.  They  have  usually  described 
Adam  as  endowed  with  all  the  refinement,  and  possessed  of  all  the 
knowledge,  and  adorned  with  all  the  metaphysical  acumen  and 
subtlety  of  a  modern  theologian.  They  have  deemed  him  quali- 
fied, in  the  very  infancy  of  the  w^orld,  to  understand  and  discuss 
questions,  which,  under  all  the  light  of  the  Christian  revelation, 
still  perplex  and  embarrass  the  human  mind.  After  these  accounts 
of  the  endowments  of  Adam,  which  occupy  so  large  a  space  in 
books  of  theology,  one  is  surprised  on  opening  the  Bible,  to  find 
how  unlike  all  this  is  to  the  simple  statement  in  Genesis.  And 
the  wonder  cannot  be  suppressed,  that  men  should  describe  the 
obvious  infancy  of  the  race  as  superior  to  its  highest  advance- 

4 


38 

ment;  or  that  the  first  man  just  created,  juat  looking  upon  a 
world  of  wonders,  unacquainted  with  law  and  moral  relations,  and 
the  effect  of  transgression,  should  be  represented  as  endowed 
with  knowledge,  which,  four  thousand  years  afterwards,  it  re- 
quired the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God  to  communicate." 

To  the  truth  of  this  charge,  the  accused  pleads  affirmatively ; 
but  he  denies  its  relevancy,  and  puts  in  a  plea  of  justihcation.  It 
will  therefore  detain  us  only  a  brief  space, 

2. 1  wish  here  to  observe,  that  no  "  charge  of  heresy  is  based"  on 
this  passage,  or  ever  was.  On  the  contrary,  I  stated,  and  now 
state,  that  in  itself  considered,  it  is  a  small  matter,  and  acquires 
the  little  importance  1  attacli  to  ii,  simply  from  its  connection 
with  and  preparation  for  others  of  great  importance.  3.  If  Adam 
was  "  ignorant  of  law  and  moral  relations" — if  he  was  a  large 
baby,  thrown  into  a  strange  world,  without  being  endowed  by  his 
Creator  with  knowledge,  but  in  an  extremely  limited  degree — if 
he  knew  nothuig  about  any  kind  of  death  but  that  of  the  body,and 
must  so  understand  the  threatening — then,  of  course,  there  was 
no  covenant  made  with  him.  He  could  know  nothing  about 
terms  of  a  covenant — a  covenant  of  works,  there  could  not  possi- 
bly be.  This  is  why  this  charge  is  placed  here.  It  is  a  link  in 
the  chain  of  error — a  preparatory  step  to  a  direct  denial  of  the 
covenant:  and,  so  I  doubt  not,  it  was  designed.  To  this  the 
writer  has  reference  when  he  complains  of  men  "  carrying  their 
notions  of  doctrinal  subjects  to  the  explanation  of  words  and 
phrases  in  the  Old  Testament."  This  is  the  key  to  the  whole 
paragraph,  and  explains  why  the  writer  has  collected  a  series  of 
silly  notions,  in  order  to  ridicule  the  idea  of  Adam's  knowledge 
being  adequate  to  understand  the  nature  of  a  covenant,  and  of 
spiritual  and  eternal  death. 

4.  The  words  "Dust  thou  art,"  &c.,  are  not  the  ^^ infliction  of 
the  penalty."  Little  as  Adam  is  supposed  to  have  known,  I  can- 
not persuade  myself  he  could  have  committed  such  a  mistake,  as 
to  take  the  pronunciation  of  the  sentence  for  its  infliction.  This 
error  surely  belongs  legitimately  to  one  of  his  youngest  sons  born, 
at  least  educated,  in  the  full  blaze  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
Now  to  another  of  those  sons,  it  appears,  that  Adam  could  know 
better,  at  this  juncture,  just  when  the  sentence  was  pronounced, 
and  when  he  had  actually  experienced  something  of  spiritual 
death,  as  evinced  by  the  fact  of  his  endeavouring  to  hide  from 
God, — he  could  better  know  what  spiritual  death  was,  than  he 
could,  what  natural  or  bodily  death  was,  which  he  did  not  expe- 
rience for  nearly  a  thousand  years  afterward.  5.  If  Adam  knew 
nothing  of  spiritual  death,  then  I  ask,  how  could  God,  consistently 
with  justice,  visit  him  with  it,  as  he  did,  in  the  tokens  of  divine 
displeasure]  6.  If  he  was  thus  ignorant  even  after  the  sentence 
to  bodily  death,  how  could  he  understand  the  language,  "in  the 
day  thou  eastest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die  ]"  When  he  did 
not  die  a  natural  death  that  day,  must  he  disbelieve  the  truth  of 


39 

the  denunciation  !  7.  Brother  Barnes  endeavours  to  mystify,  by 
representing-  me  as  maintaining  that  Adam  knew  all  the  conse- 
quences of  his  sin,  and  every  thing  else.     This  is  disingenuous. 

That  this  idea  of  our  lirst  parent's  ignorance,  is  inconsistent 
with  the  standards,  see  Conf.  ch.  iv.  2.  "  After  God  had  made 
all  other  creatures,  he  made  man,  male  and  female,  with  reasona- 
ble and  immortal  souls,  endued  with  knowledge,  righteousness, 
and  true  holiness,  after  his  own  image,  having  the  law  of  God 
written  in  their  hearts."  Larg.  Cat.  17. — to  the  same  effect,  20. 
God  afforded  man  "  in  the  estate  in  which  he  was  created" — 
"  communion  with  himself,  instituting  the  Sabbath,  entering  into 
a  covenant  of  life  with  him,  upon  condition  of  personal,  perfect, 
and  perpetual  obedience,  of  which  the  tree  of  life  was  a  pledge:" 
and  the  22.  "  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,"  &c.,  and 
the  Short  Cat.  12.  "  When  God  had  created  man,  he  entered  into 
a  covenant  of  life  with  him"  &lc.  :  and  yet,  although  they  were 
"endued  with  knowledge" — "after  his  own  image,  having  the 
law  of  God  written  in  their  hearts" — had  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
made  known  to  them  and  a  covenant  of  life,  with  its  condition  : 
yet  after  all  they  were  '*  ignorant  of  law  and  moral  relations  1" 
or  as  in  the  amendment,  "imperfectly  acquainted  with  law  !" 

What  say  the  Scriptures! 

Gen.  i.  27.    "God  created  man  in  his  own  imag'e/' 

What  was  this  image? 

Col.  iii.  10.  "  And  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in 
knowledge,  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him." 

Clearly,  then,  the  image  of  God,  in  which  Adam  was  created, 
consisted  in  knowledge ;  whatever  else  it  included,  this  was  a 
leading  feature  of  it. 

Rom.  ii.  15.  "  Which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their 
hearts." 

What  is  it  that  shows'?  Why,  the  law  of  nature  as  contradis- 
tinguished from  the  revealed  law  given  to  the  Jews.  When  was 
that  law  impressed  upon  the  human  heart  1  Undoubtedly  at  its 
first  creation,  and  what  remains  upon  the  Gentile  conscience,  is 
a  defaced  relic. 

Gen.  ii.  16,  17.  "  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying, 
Of  every  tree,"  Sec. 

This  reveals  to  us  the  covenant  of  works ;  but  I  waive,  until  we 
come  to  that  more  directly,  all  remark  upon  it.  If  such  a  trans- 
action as  our  Confession  represents,  ever  did  take  place,  then  this 
imputation  of  ignorance  to  Adam,  is  as  unscriptural,  as  it  is  unbe- 
coming the  wisest  of  his  sons. 

CHARGE  III. 

Mr.  Barnes  teaches,  "  That  unregenerate  men  are  able  to  keep 
the  commandments,  and  convert  theiiiselves  to  God." 


40 

Proof  1.  p.  164.  "  The  carnal  mind.  This  is  the  same  expres- 
sion as  occurs  in  verse  6,  (I'o  (p^ovrfjia  -r'jjj  tfa^xoj)  "  It  does  not 
mean  the  mind  itself,  the  intellect,  or  the  will  :  It  does  not  sup- 
pose that  the  mind  or  the  soul  is  physically  depraved,  or  opposed 
to  God  ;  but  it  means  that  the  ?ninding  of  the  things  of  the  fleshy 
giving-  to  them  supreme  attention,  is  hostility  to  God."  "  For  it — 
The  word  (it)  here  refers  to  the  minding- of  the  things  of  the  flesh. 
It  does  mean  that  the  soul  itself  is  not  subject  to  his  law,  but  that 
the  minding  of  those  things  is  hostile  to  his  law.  The  Apostle 
does  not  express  any  opinion  about  the  metaphysical  ability  of 
man,  or  discuss  that  question  at  all.  The  amount  of  his  affirma- 
tion is  simply,  that  the  minding  of  the  fleshy  the  supreme  atten- 
tion to  its  dictates  and  desires,  is  not  and  cannot  be  subject  to  the 
law  of  God.  They  are  wholly  contradictory  and  irreconcileable, 
just  as  much  as  the  love  of  falsehood  is  inconsistent  with  the  laws 
of  truth;  as  intemperance  with  the  laws  of  temperance  ;  as  adul- 
tery is  a  violation  of  the  seventh  commandment.  But  whether 
the  man  himself  might  not  obey  the  law  ;  whether  he  has  or  has 
not  ability  to  do  it,  is  a  question  which  the  Apostle  does  not  touch, 
and  on  which  this  passage  should  not  be  adduced.  For  whether 
the  law  of  a  particular  sin  is  utterly  irreconcileable  with  an  oppo- 
site virtue,  and  whether  the  sinner  is  able  to  abandon  that  sin,  are 
very  different  inquiries. 

Is  not  subject.  It  is  not  in  subjection  to  the  command  of  God. 
The  minding  of  the  flesh  is  opposed  to  that  law,  and  thus  shows 
that  it  is  hostile  to  God. 

Neither  indeed  can  he.  This  is  absolute  and  certain.  It  is  im- 
possible that  it  should  be.  There  is  the  utmost  inability  in  regard 
to  it.  The  things  are  utterly  irreconcileable.  But  the  affirma- 
tion does  not  mean  that  the  heart  of  the  sinner  might  not  be  sub- 
ject to  God  :  or  that  his  soul  is  so  physically  depraved  that  he 
cannot  obey,  or  that  he  might  not  obey  the  law. 

Page  165,  8.     So  then.     It  follows,  it  leads  to  this  conclusion. 

They  that  are  in  the  flesh.  They  who  are  unrenewed  sinners, 
who  are  following  supremely  the  desires  of  the  flesh,  chap.  vii. 
18.  Those  are  meant  here,  who  follow  fleshly  appetites  and 
desires,  and  who  are  not  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

Cannot  please  God.  That  is,  while  they  are  thus  in  the  flesh, 
while  they  thus  pursue  the  desires  of  their  corrupt  nature,  they 
cannot  please  God.  But  this  affirms  nothing  respecting  their 
ability  to  turn  from  this  course,  and  to  pursue  a  different  mode  of 
life.  That  is  a  different  question.  A  child  may  be  obstinate, 
proud,  and  disobedient;  and  ivhile  in  that  state,  it  may  be  affirmed 
of  him,  that  he  cannot  please  his  parent.  But  whether  he  might 
not  cease  to  be  obstinate,  and  become  obedient,  is  a  very  different 
inquiry,  and  the  two  subjects  should  never  be  confounded.  *  *  * 
He  [the  sinner]  is  engaged  in  hostility  against  God,  and  if  he  does 
not  himself  forsake  it,  it  will  be  endless,  and  involve  his  soul  in 
all  the  evils  of  a  personal,  and  direct,  and  eternal  warfare  with 


41 

the  Lord  Almig-lity.  *  *  *  The  Holy  Spirit  is  oflen  represented 
as  dwellinor  in  the  hearts  of  Christians:  and  the  meaning  is  not 
that  there  is  a.  personal  or  physical  indwellino-  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  that  he  influences,  directs,  and  guides  Christians;  producing 
meekness,  love,  joy,  peace,  long-sufl'ering,  gentleness,  good- 
ness, &c.  The  expression,  to  dwell  in  one,  denotes  intimacy  of 
connection,  and  means  that  those  things  which  are  the  fruits  of 
the  Spirit,  are  produced  in  the  heart." 

Proof  2,  p.  108.  "  We  were  yei  loithoiit  strength.  The  worj 
here  used  (a.aOrivc^v')  is  usually  applied  to  those  who  are  sick  and 
feeble,  deprived  of  strength  by  disease.  Mark  xxx.  38 ;  Luke 
X.  9. ;  Acts  iv.  9. — v.  15.  But  it  is  also  used  in  a  moral  sense,  to 
denote  inability  or  feebleness,  with  regard  to  any  undertaking  or 
duty.  Here  it  means  that  they  were  without  strength  in  regard 
to  the  case  which  the  Apostle  was  considering,  that  is,  we  have 
no  power  to  devise  a  scheme  of  justification,  to  make  an  atone- 
ment, or  to  put  away  the  wrath  of  God,  &:.c.  While  all  hope  of 
man's  being  saved  by  any  plan  of  his  own,  was  then  taken  away ; 
.while  he  was  thus  laying  exposed  to  divine  justice,  and  de- 
pendent on  the  mere  mercy  of  God  ;  God  provided  a  plan  which 
met  the  case,  and  secured  his  salvation.  The  remark  of  the 
Apostle  here  has  reference  only  to  the  race  before  the  atonement 
was  made.  It  does  not  pertain  to  the  question  whether  the  man 
has  strength  to  repent  and  to  believe,  now  that  the  atonement  is 
made,  which  is  a  very  ditierent  inquiry." 

Before  proceeding  in  the  matter  of  this  charge,  allow  me  three 
observations.  1.  It  is  possible  to  teach  error  by  denying  the 
truth — to  take  away  sound  doctrine  positively,  by  a  series  of  detail 
in  the  negative,  ex  gr. :  Certain  texts  of  Scripture,  say  twenty 
in  number,  have  been  depended  on  to  prove  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  I  wish  to  reject  that  doctrine  and  yet  do  not  feel  it  to  be 
prudent  to  do  it  openly.  It  may  be  done  more  successfully  and 
safely  by  denying  in  the  detail,  that  it  is  taught  in  any  of  these  pas- 
sages. I  put  a  gloss  upon  the  passage  which  contains  a  history 
of  Christ's  baptism,  and  conclude,  by  saying,  whatever  maybe 
the  trutfi  or  falsehood  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,it  is  not  taught 
here.  I  take  up  the  words  used  at  baptism,  "  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  «Sic."  and  gloss  over  and  conclude,  that  doctrine  has  no 
foundation  here.  And  so  throughout  the  whole.  Have  I  not 
really  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ]  And  yet  I  have  not  in 
any  one  instance  said  "  It  is  not  true — it  is  not  taught  in  the  Bible." 
Is  there  a  more  effectual  mode  of  attacking  truth  than  this  parti- 
zan  war;  this  slow  method  of  insulated  assault] 

But  then  it  will  be  said  in  reply,  "  I  have  only  removed  certain 
texts  which  have  been  usually  supposed  to  prove  the  doctrine  of 
the  sinners  inability,"  there  are  yet  scores  of  others  left.  Very 
true,  but  the  same  process  may  take  away  the  rest.  Now  my  po- 
sition is,  that  when  a  writer  displays  a  disposition  to  take  away 
the  Scripture  props  from  any  doctrine,  it  is  evident  he  dislikes  the 

4* 


43 

doctrine  itself.  Just  so,  the  labour  expended  in  the  above,  to 
evince  that  the  doctrine  of  man's  inabiliiy  is  not  taught  in  these 
passages  of  Scripture  evinces  a  dislike  to  it,  and  I  question  the 
possibility  of  any  intelligent  man's  reading  them  carefully  over, 
without  imbibing  the  conviction,  from  the  moral  evidence  in  them, 
that  their  writer  was  an  advocate  of  human  ability.     And  yet, 

2.  This  is  the  only  charge  in  which  I  have  felt  any  hesitancy 
as  to  the  adequacy  of  the  proof — not  of  course  as  to  the  reality  and 
verity  of  the  case,  (for  1  have  no  doubt  Mr.  Barnes  holds  the  com- 
mon doctrine  of  human  ability  as  found  in  the  East)  but  as  to  the 
possibility  of  giving  it  tangible  form.     For, 

3.  Nothing  is  set  forth  in  this  charge  but  the  doctrine  that  men 
are  able  to  make  themselves  new  hearts  and  to  live  accordingly. 
It  is  assumed  as  an  obvious  truth,  that  if  men  are  able  to  come 
unto  God  in  the  first  instance,  they  are  able  to  live  ii.  him. 

Now  on  the  comment  itself.  (1)  Mr.  B.  admits  that  the  phrase, 
"they  that  are  in  the  flesh,"  means — "they  who  are  unrenewed 
sinners" — unregenerate  men. 

(2)  He  admits,  that,  "  while  they  are  in  this  state,  they  cannot 
please  God."  "  But" — what]  they  can  change  their  state — if  they 
choose ;  they  can  come  out  of  it. — "  But  this  affirms  nothing  res- 
pecting their  ability  to  turn  from  this  course,  and  to  pursue  a  dif- 
ferent mode  of  life.  Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  affirm  the  plain 
meaning  of  this  language  to  be,  "  that  unregenerate  men  are  able 
to  convert  themselves."  No  simple  unsophisticated  mind  is  able 
to  take  any  other  meaning  out  of  it. 

(3)  The  writer  however  illustrates.  "A  child  may  be  obsti- 
nate, proud,  and  disobedient,  and  while  in  this  state,  it  may  be 
affirmed  of  him,  that  he  cannot  please  his  parent.  But" — Whati 
the  child,  whenever  he  chooses,  may  cease  to  be  disobedient — 
may  change  his  state — can  convert  himself — "But  whether  he 
might  not  cease  to  be  obstinate  and  become  obedient,  is  a  very 
different  inquiry." — The  same  kind  of  ability  is  affirmed  of  men 
in  reference  to  their  Creator,  as  is  affirmed  of  the  child  in  refer- 
ence to  its  parent.  A  child  can  convert  itself  from  a  state  of  dis- 
obedience to  a  state  of  obedience;  the  unrenewed  sinner  can  con- 
vert himself  from  that  state  to  a  state  of  obedience. 

(4)  I  cannot  in  justice  refrain  from  the  remark,  that  the  whole 
comment  is  assertion  ;  dogmatic  assertion.  Here  it  would  seem 
the  annotator  felt  that  he  was  writing  for  children  and  young 
people, 

(5)  "We  were  yet  without  strength."  This  "remark  of  the 
apostle,"  he  says,  "  has  reference  onlyio  the  condition  of  the  case 
before  the  atonement  was  made."  Of  course,  new  the  deficiency 
of  strength  does  not  exist;  we  are  not  without  strength.  The 
atonement  has  removed  the  inability,  and  consequently  put  men 
in  a  salvable  state — that  is,  all  men — in  a  state  where  they  may 
be  saved  if  they  choose  and  lohenever  they  choose.  This  is  a 
distinguishing  tenet,  but  not  of  Presbyterianism. 


43 

(6)  In  this  comment,  the  carnal  mind,  is  taken  abstractly,  for 
the  acting  of  the  individual — the  ^^  minding  of  the  Jlesh''^ — "givino- 
supreme  attention,"  and  this  acting  is  personified,  and  concerning 
it  the  question  is  raised:  Can  it  be  subject, to  the  law  of  God? 
Has  it — the  acting,  ability  to  obey  the  law  ?  Now  this  is  forced 
and  unnatural.  The  question  of  subjection  to  law  relates  to  per- 
sons, and  accordingly  the  apostle  draws  his  conclusion,  "  So  then, 
they  that  are  in  the  flesh  cannot  please  God."  The  carnal  mind 
(to  phronema  tees  sarkos)  is  therefore  equivalent  to  "  they  that 
are  in  the  flesh ;"  i.  e.  unregenerate  men.  These  are  unable  to  be 
of  themselves  pleasing  to  God ;  or  by  their  conduct  to  please  him. 
They  are  unable,  says  the  apostle:  that  is  true,  says  his  expositor, 
but  they  can  turn  and  then  it  must  be  otherwise.  This  doctrine 
of  human  ability  is  contrary  to  the  Standards. 

Con.  vs.  4.  "  From  this  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly 
indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  lo  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined 
to  all  evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions." 

IX.  3.  "  Man,  by  his  fall  into  a  state  of  sin,  hath  wholly  lost  all 
abihty  of  will  to  any  spiritual  good  accompanying  salvation,  so  as  a 
natural  man  being  altogether  averse  from  that  which  is  good,  and  dead 
in  sin,  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself,  or  to  prepare 
himself  thereunto." 

X.  1.  "All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those 
only,  he  is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  lime,  effectually  to 
call,  by  his  word  and  Spirit,  out  of  tliat  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which 
they  are  by  nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ;  enlighten- 
ing their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly  to  understand  the  things  of 
God,  taking  away  their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of 
flesh  ;  renewing  their  wills  and  by  his  almiglity  power  determining 
them  to  that  which  is  good ;  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus 
Christ ;  yet  so  as  they  come  most  freely  being  made  willing  by  his 
grace." 

2.  "  This  effectual  calling  is  of  God's  free  and  special  grace  alone, 
not  from  any  thing  at  all  foreseen  in  man  ;  who  is  altogether  passive 
therein,  until,  being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is 
thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call,  and  to  embrace  the  grace  offered 
and  conveyed  in  it." 

XVI.  3.  "•  Their  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  all  of  themselve?, 
but  wholly  from  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  that  they  may  be  enabled 
thereunto,  besides  the  graces  they  have  already  received,  there  is  re- 
quired an  actual  influence  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit  tp  work  in  them 
to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure:" 

The  inability  here  affects,  1.  The  understanding.  For  in  the 
recovery  from  it,  the  counteracting  grace,  begins  in  the  under- 
standing, "  enlightening  their  minds  spiritually  and  savingly,  to 
understand  the  things  of  God." — And  this  is  supported  by  the 
Scripture. 

Acts  xxxvi.  18.  "  To  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness 
to  light."  '     _ 

And  this  is  exactly  accordant  with  the  history  of  sin's  introduc- 


44 

lion.   It  was  by  the  understanding- — "the  woman,  being  deceived, 
was  in  the  transfjression."     So  are  all  her  posterity. 

1  Cor.  ii.  14.  "13ut  tlic  natural  man  rcceivcth  not  the  things  of  the 

Spiril  of  (Joel." 

Why?  because  he  don't  like  them]  Not  exactly  that — but  for 
another  reason  lying  beyond  it — he  don't  understand  them  spiritu- 
ally "  for  they  are  tbolishness  unto  him." — Why  J  because,  "  nei- 
ther crm  he  know  them," — and  why  is  he  unable  to  know  them  J 
— "  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned,"  and  "  the  God  of  this 
world  hath  blinded  the  minds  of  them  that  believe  not," — of  the 
unregenerate — that  is,  of  all  men.  "  Darkness  hath  covered  the 
earth."  Tliat  faculty  of  man  by  which  he  perceives  truth  and 
reasons  upon  it,  as  it  was  the  first  affected  by  sin,  so  it  is  the  first 
affected  by  the  Spirit,  in  his  work  of  restoring  our  nature.  Then, 
the  understanding  being  enlightened, 

2.  The  obduracy,  tlie  hardness,  the  insensibility  of  the  soul,  is 
removed  ;  the  affections  are  affected — "  taking  away  their  heart  of 
stone  and  giving  unto  them  a  heart  of  flesh."  And  this  part  of 
the  Confession  is  sustained  by 

Ezek.  xxxvi.  26.  *'  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  nev»^  spirit 
will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of'your 
flesh,   and  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh." 

Then  the  affections  being  susceptible  of  tender  influences, 
through  the  understanding's  perceptions  of  the  gospel  plan  and 
God's  love  therein  exhibited,  and  thus  prepared  to  operate  upon 
the  will. 

Thirdly.  The  will  is  renewed.  This  is  that  faculty  of  the  soul 
by  which  choice  is  made.  The  will  is  the  soul  or  mind  choosing 
— "  That  which  has  the  power  of  volition  is  the  man,  or  the  soul," 
says  Edwards,  "renewing  their  wills."  For  by  sin  they  were  "made 
opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all  evil."  But  now 
God  "  worketh  in  you  both  to  loill  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 
Phil.  ii.  13.  For  "  the  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of 
themselves." 

But  here,  a  very  important  question  turns  up:  by  what  kind  of 
influence  is  this  renewing  of  the  will  effected  1  Is  it  by  motives 
only,  according  to  the  manner  in  which  man  influences  his  fellow 
man  1  Is  it  mere  persuasion  and  argument?  "Knowing  the 
terror  of  the  Lord  we  persuade  men :"  but  does  God's  Spirit  do 
any  thing  more  than  persuade  men?  This  istiie  doctrine  of  some. 
But  look  at  the  Confession  :  "  and  by  his  almighty  power  deter- 
mining them  to  that  which  is  good."  Or,  as  in  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism 31,  "  he  doth  persuade  and  enable  us."  Suasion  is  used, 
but  ^0M?er  is  also  given.  Or  as  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  C7, — 
"they  (although  in  themselves  dead  in  sin,)  are  hereby  made 
willing  and  able."  "  Man  had  lost  all  ability  of  will" — so  as  a 
natural  man  is  not  able,  by  his  own  strength  to  convert  himself," 


45 

therefore  God  gives  him  strength  or  ability  working  in  him  "  by  his 
almighty  power." 

Thus,  by  the  Confession  and  the  Bible,  the  utter  inability  of 
man  lies  in  his  understanding,  his  affections,  and  his  will.  The 
understanding  is  the  leading  faculty  of  the  soul;  it  presents  to  the 
affections  objects  of  desire  or  aversion  ;  the  affections  are  moved 
and  operate  upon  the  will,  and  the  divine  power  of  the  Spirit 
gives  ability  in  all.  How  satisfactory  is  this  Scriptural  and  Con- 
fession of  Faith  view  of  the  subject  ?  How  gladly  would  I  stop  1 
And  how  satisfactory  it  is  to  the  simple-hearted  Christian,  un- 
spoiled by  false  philosophy  and  bewildering  metaphysics?  But  it 
cannot  be.  My  unfortunate  brother  has  retreated  and  trenched 
himself  in  metaphysics,  and  I  must  continue,  "  faint,  yet  pur- 
suing." 

But  before  I  proceed  to  discuss  "  the  metaphysical  ability  of 
man,"  as  Mr.  Barnes  calls  it,  let  me  make  a  few  observations  on 
his  remarks.  (1.)  He  teaches  man's  moral  ability — his  ability  to 
change  his  own  heart.  What !  do  you  venture  such  an  affirma- 
tion? Yes,  I  do.  Mr.  Barnes  teaches  in  this  "Defence"  the 
very  doctrine  against  which  he  defends.  He  teaches  that  men 
have  power  "  to  choose" — "  to  make  themselves  new  hearts." 
The  proof!  the  proof!  Well,  here  it  is,  in  his  own  words.  "  The 
inability  of  a  man  to  remove  a  mountain  is  one  thing,  and  an  in- 
ability to  do  right  arising  from  the  strong  love  of  sin  is  another. 
The  one  excuses,  the  other  does  not.  The  latter  is  that  which 
is  to  be  charged  on  men ;  for  {a)  it  is  that  only  which  is  referred 
to  in  the  Bible.  The  Scriptures  when  they  account  for  the  reason 
why  men  do  not  become  Christians,  trace  it  to  sin,  and  to  disin- 
clination, John  V.  40,  44.  Particular  sins  are  specified,  the  love 
of  the  world,  pride,  passion,  lust,  &c.  (6)  They  address  men  as 
subject  to  no  other  inability.  They  command  men  to  choose  and 
to  make  themselves  new  hearts,  all  of  which  suppose  that  man 
has  power  to  obey."  Here  is  unequivocal  language.  Men  are 
commanded  "  to  choose" — "  to  make  themselves  new  hearts." 
Two  distinct  commands  are  here  stated.  Now,  has  man  power 
to  obey?  Certainly,  says  Mr.  Barnes,  it  "supposes  he  has  power 
to  obey."  And  the  contrary  supposition  would  be  the  height  of 
absurdity;  for,  (c)  "if  not,  man  is  excusable  for  not  obeying." 
Manifestly  then,  here  is  the  doctrine  of  moral  ability — ability  of 
will — ability  "  to  choose" — ability  to  "  make  themselves  a  new 
heart."  Now  this  is  the  old  Pelagian  and  Arminian  doctrine  of 
free  will,  against  which  Edwards  wrote,  and  which  he  demolished. 
But,  I  know,  brother  Barnes  denies  he  holds  it ;  yet  you  see  he 
teaches  it,  strongly  and  clearly  I  (2)  Bat  yet,  he  admits  the  contrary 
doctrine  of  man's  moral  inability.  To  this  he  is  constrained  and 
shut  up  by  the  Bible  and  Confession — "  an  inability  to  do  right" 
he  admits — "  it  was  a  moral  and  not  a  natural  inability.'''' — "  Such 
his  moral  inability  [the  italics  are  his  own]  i.  e.  his  strong  and 
decided  and  constant  opposition  to  God  by  nature,  that  he  will 


46 

always  remain  a  sinner  unless  he  is  aided  from  on  high."  (3)  I 
am  extremely  anxious  you  should  note  it  down,  that  this  "  moral 
inability''' — this  "  inability  of  will"  as  the  Confession  has  it,  and 
which  it  says  is  removed  "  by  his  almighty  power" — this  being 
"  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,"  Mr. 
Barnes  admits,  with  the  Confession  and  the  Bible  is  bv  nature." 
It  is  natural.  It  exists  in  man  when  he  is  born — he  brings  it  into 
the  world  with  him.  It  is  antecedent  to  all  volition  in  him.  Its  exist- 
ence does  not  depend  upon  his  voluntary  action  at  all.  It  is  the 
result  of  original  corruption,  and  is  never  removed  but  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  so  that  "  No  one  can  come  to  me  except  the  Father 
which  hath  sent  me  draw  him." 

Now  for  the  metaphysics.  And  1st,  let  us  state  the  doctrine  of 
Edwards,  referred  to  by  brother  Barnes,  vol.  ii.  p.  35.  "  Whal 
has  been  said  of  natural  and  moral  necessity,  may  serve  to  explain 
what  is  intended  by  natural  and  moral  inability.  We  are  said  to 
be  naturally  unable  to  do  a  thing,  when  we  cannot  do  it  if  we 
will,  because  what  is  most  commonly  called  nature  does  not  allow 
it,  or  because  of  some  impeding  defect  or  obstacle  that  is  extrin- 
sic to  the  will ;  either  in  the  faculty  of  understanding,  constitution 
of  body,  or  external  objects."  This  is  the  doctrine  of  natural  in- 
ability, and  I  have  but  one  remark  upon  it  here,  viz.,  it  includes 
"  defect  or  obstacle,  in  the  faculty  of  understanding."  If  the  mind 
be  darkened,  the  powers  of  perception  and  reasoning  impaired,  it 
is  a  natural  inability.  That  this  is  his  meaning  is  indubitably  evi- 
dent from  what  he  says  of  that  natural  necessity,  which  is  the 
basis  of  the  distinction.  "By  natural  necessity,  as  applied  to 
men,  I  mean  such  necessity  as  men  are  under  through  the  force 
of  natural  causes ;  as  distinguished  from  what  are  called  moral 
causes,  such  as  habits  and  dispositions  of  the  heart,  and  moral 
motives  and  inducements.  Thus  men — assent  to  the  truth  of  cer- 
tain propositions,  as  soon  as  the  terms  are  understood ;  as  that  two 
arid  two  make  four — "  Now  assent  to  the  truth  of  propositions  is 
a  matter  for  the  understanding — it  can  only  result  from  perception 
of  the  agreement  between  the  ideas  compared  in  the  proposition. 
Jjet  it  be  ;Set  down  then  as  president  Edwards'  doctrine  of  natural 
inability,  that  it  includes  "defect  or  obstacle  in  the  faculty  of  un- 
derstanding," as  well  as  "  in  the  constitution  of  body,  and  exter-^ 
nal  objects."  Keep  that,  Mr.  Moderator,  until  we  see  what  he 
means  by  Moral  Inability.  It  "  consists,"  says  he,  "  not  in  any 
of  these  things;  but  either  in  the  want  of  inclination,  or  the 
strength  of  a  contrary  inclination ;  or  the  want  of  sufficient  mo- 
tives in  view,  to  induce  and  excite  the  act  of  the  will,  or  the 
strength  of  apparent  motives  to  the  contrary.  Or  both  these  may 
be  resolved  into  one ;  and  it  may  be  said  in  one  word,  that  moral 
inability  consists  in  the  opposition  or  want  of  inclination.  For 
when  a  person  is  unable  to  will  or  choose  such  a  thing,  through 
a  defect  of  motives,  or  prevalence  of  contrary  motives,  it  is  the 
isajiie  thing  as  his  being  unable  from  the  want  of  inclination,  op 


47 

the  prevalence  of  a  contrary  inclination,  in  such  circumstances 
and  under  the  influence  of  such  views." 

Now  1  have  no  objection  to  this  definition,  and  but  one  to  that 
of  Natural  Inability.  But  I  have  weighty  objections  to  the  prac- 
tical application  which  many  have  rashly  made  of  them.  The 
author  is  indeed  not  accountable  for  the  abuse.  That  sin  lies  upon 
those  who  either  leave  out  that  part  of  his  definition  (and  it  is  the 
principal  part)  in  which  he  makes  defect  of  understanding  a  natu- 
ral inability,  or  who  boldly  maintain  that  man's  understanding  is  as 
perfect  as  before  the  fall.  The  fearful  desolations  which  the 
church  has  suffered  from  this  abuse,  have  caused  many  regrets 
that  ever  the  distinction  was  made.  Without  pretending  to  wade 
through  this  difficult  subject,  because  "natural  inability  or  defect 
in  the  faculty  of  understanding,"  and  limited  space,  equally  forbid 
it  and  render  it  physically  impossible,  I  propose  the  following  ob- 
servations : 

1.  Against  the  doctrine,  that  man  unrenewed  has  full  and  per- 
fect natural  ability,  according  to  Edwards'  definition  of  it,  I  ob- 
ject, because  it  is  not  true.  The  natural  man  does  labour  under 
a  defect  of  understanding  in  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The 
Bible  and  Confession  and  all  Christian  divines,  and  all  Christian 
experience  unite  in  the  proof  The  understanding  is  darkened, 
and  without  the  illumination — the  supernatural  illumination  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  it  cannot  discern  the  things  of  the  Spirit.  This 
fact  is  undenied  and  undeniable.  That  man  has  a  faculty  of  un- 
derstanding, by  which  he  can  read  and  reason  about  scriptural 
truth,  is  admitted:  but  that  this  faculty  is  unimpaired  by  sin,  is 
utterly  denied.  Nothing  short  of  the  Spirit  shining  into  the  heart 
can  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God.  All  the 
prayers  of  Christians  for  light  and  knowledge  imply  this.  All  men 
feel  it.  This  very  discussion  shows  it.  If  the  understanding  is 
not  impaired  by  sin,  why  cannot  we  see  things  alike!  Had  man 
before  he  sinned  any  such  perplexity]  But  will  it  be  said,  the 
very  prayer  for  increase  of  light  implies  the  natural  powers  to  re- 
ceive it.  If  we  had  not  the  natural  power,  how  could  we  pray 
that  our  understandings  may  be  enlightened  T  I  answer,  certainly 
it  implies  a  natural  understanding,  competent  to  receive  natural 
truth,  but  it  implies  not  a  deficiency  of  light  absolutely,  for  it 
shines  all  around.  It  beams  from  the  pages  of  God's  word,  and 
the  natural  man's  not  receiving,  is  not  owing  to  its  deficiency,  but 
to  want  of  capacity — to  defect  in  his  perceptive  powers. 

2.  It  does  not  relieve  the  doctrine  of  full  ability  of  understanding 
in  the  natural  man,  to  say  that  this  defect  alleged  exists  in,  or 
flows  from,  the  corrupt  affections.  For  my  2d  observation  is,  that 
this  very  inability  is  itself  a  sin,  and  has  its  origin,  not  in  the  na- 
ture of  man  as  he  came  from  the  hand  of  God,  but  in  sin  itself 
and  its  penal  consequences.  Now,  if  this  blindness  of  under- 
standing is  a  penal  evil,  it  alters  not  the  matter  of  fact.  For  our 
inquiry  is  not  as  to  its  origin,  but  as  to  the  reality  of  it.     Does  it 


48 

exist?  And  limiting"  our  view  to  this,  it  seems  to  me  impossible 
to  maintain  the  position,  that  "  the  natural  man  can — that  he  is 
able — that  he  labours  under  no  defect  of  understanding — to  dis- 
cern the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

3.  Man  is  not  now  in  his  original  state  and  condition.  This, 
you  will  say,  is  no  information.  And  yet  the  opposite  seems  to 
be  assumed  in  a  large  proportion  of  the  discussion  on  this  subject. 
Mr.  Barnes'  reasoning  presupposes  that  man  is  now  in  a  state  of 
probation,  and  is  therefore  furnished  now  with  all  the  means  of  a 
fair  trial.  The  same  assumption  is  almost  every  where  made  in 
similar  discussions.  And  with  that  assumption,!  too  am  ready  to 
admit,  that  where  a  thing  is  commanded  as  duty,  the  implication 
is,  that  there  is  power  or  ability  to  comply  with  the  command. 
But  when  the  state  of  probation  is  ended,  and  the  nature  of  man 
in  ruins,  the  case  is  very  different.  Adam,  in  his  pristine  condi- 
tion, had  ability  commensurate  with  his  obligations.  All  the 
powers  of  his  nature  were  perfect,  and  the  right  exercise  of  them 
was  all  his  Maker  demanded  of  him  ;  and  to  have  demanded  of 
him  more  than  the  faculties  of  his  being  were  adequate  to  per- 
form, would  not  have  comported  with  the  nature  of  God's  moral 
government.  But  now  that  he  has  reduced  to  ruins  his  intellec- 
tual and  moral  powers,  and  cut  short  the  period  of  his  probation — 
now  that  he  is  poor,  weak,  fallen,  corrupt,  he  has  not  powers 
commensurate  with  his  duties.  To  affirm  this,  is  to  maintain  one 
of  the  most  ineffable  of  all  absurdities,  which  it  is  the  purpose  of 
my 

4th  Observation  to  deny,  viz.  That  present  ability  is  the  mea- 
sure of  present  duty.  Or,  in  other  words,  that  a  man's  inability 
to  meet  the  requisitions  of  law,  cancels  his  obligation  ;  that  a  man 
cannot  be  bound  to  do  what  he  is  unable  to  do.  This  position  I 
suppose  to  be  among  the  most  unspeakable  of  absurdities.  Possi- 
bly I  may  not  have  ability  to  understand  Mr.  Barnes  and  others, 
who  have  recently  laid  down  this  as  a  moral  axiom.  But  to  me  it 
does  seem  as  if  they  meant  to  deny  obligation,  wherever  inability 
exists.  "  The  Bible  no  where  requires  more  of  men  than  they 
are  able  to  perform."  "It  does  not  lay  a  claim  on  any  power 
which  man  does  not  possess ;  nor  beyond  any  power  which  he 
possesses.  It  is  definitely  limited  to  the  extent  of  the  capacity." 
Inability,  no  matter  how  perversely  and  wickedly  brought  about, 
cancels  obligation.  On  this  new  axiom  in  morals,  you  must  in- 
dulge me  in  a  few  particular  remarks. 

1.  It  repeals  a  great  and  important  principle,  viz.  tliat  a  man  is 
accountable  not  only  for  his  own  sinful  act  itself,  but  also  for  the 
necessary  and  legitimate  results  of  that  act.  If  1  murder  a  man, 
on  whose  personal  labour  there  is  dependent  a  family  of  helpless 
children,  I  am  accountable  not  for  tlie  act  of  murder  only,  but  for 
the  wretchedness  and  misery  that  may  follow  his  family:  for  the 
ignorance  and  vice  into  which  they  may  be  plunged  by  my  deed : 
for  the  whole  line  of  evils  which  hence  result.     If  I  sell. rum  to 


49 

my  neighbour,  am  I  accotfntable  only  for  the  direct  and  imvne- 
diate  etfects  of  the  act?  Or  am  I  responsible  tor  the  dtsability 
that  hence  ensues!  My  neighbour  becomes  a  drunkard;  he  is 
disabled  from  sustaining-  liis  family;  by  his  example  they  are 
trained  up  in  all  the  ignorance  and  vice  of  the  drunkard's  hovel. 
Am  not  I  responsible  tor  these  disabilities  J  And  does  the  dis- 
ability of  the  drunkard — a  disability  induced  by  his  own  per- 
verse and  wicked  conduct — release  him  from  the  obligation  to  pro- 
vide for  his  household  J 

But  in  reply,  it  is  said,'  the  man  may  be  punished  for  the  act  of 
cutting  oft' his  hand,  but  not  for  neglecting  the  duties  to  which  he 
was  before  bound — to  require  them,  "would  be  the  definition  of 
tyranny."  Then  clearly,  the  obligation  to  duty — the  duty  of  obe- 
dience— the  duty  of  providing  for  his  household — is  nullified  by 
the  man's  own  act  of  sin  !     Hence, 

2.  I  remark,  sin  is  its  own  apology,  and  lifts  the  sinner  above 
law.  The  lawgiver  requires  obedience ;  the  sul^ject  disables  him- 
self by  perverse  rebellion — he  cannot  obey ;  therefore,  he  is  no 
longer  bound  to  obey.     But, 

3.  Apply  this  principle  to  the  commercial  transactions  of  so- 
ciety. A  man  contracts  a  debt  within  the  compass  of  his  presenfe 
ability — he  perversely  and  wickedly  squanders  his  estate,  gambles 
away  his  property,  and  disables  himself  from  payment ;  is  he  there- 
fore not  bound]  Is  he  free  from  moral  obligation  to  pay  it]  Must 
justice  break  her  scales,  and  no  waore  hold  up  an  equal  balance, 
because  he  chooses  to  become  a  villain  1  Oh  no,  the  children  of 
this  world  are  wise  in  their  generation.  The  merchant  may /or^ 
give  the  debt ;  but  forgiveness  implies  obligation  to  pay.  The 
master  may  omit  to  demand  the  service,  or  punish  its  neglect,  but 
it  is  an  omission  of  mercy.  The  law  may  not  prosecute  the  man- 
seller — the  beggared  wife  and  children  may  be  unable  to  exact 
justice  of  him  ;  but  then  it  is  because  cupidity  and  lust  are  t6o 
strong  for  justice.     Therefore, 

4.  This  principle  is  a  subversion  at  once  of  all  moral  govern- 
ments. Let  it  be  known  throughout  the  moral  universe,  that 
inability  (resulting  from  the  most  perverse  wickedness,)  cancels 
moral  obligation,  and  there  will  henceforth  commence  a  jubilee  in 
the  realms  of  rebellion,  and  their  ranks  may  very  soon  be  filled 
up ;  for  rebellion  is  then  the  surest  and  the  shortest  road  to  inde- 
pendence. 

5.  But  I  observe  again,  if  natural  inability  cancels  rtioral  obli- 
gntion,  much  more  moral  inability  cancels  moral  obligation. 
Your  respectful  and  special  attention  is  invited  to  this  point.  It 
is  an  ad  hominem  against  the  ability  doctrine.  Taking  these 
brethren  on  their  own  principles,  let  us  see  what  the  result  must 
be.  We  contend  that  man  labours  under  "  a  defect  or  obstacle," 
as  Edwards  says,  "in  the  faculty  of  understanding"— that  this 
faculty,  in  our  present  depraved  state,  is  unable  to  discern  spiri- 
tual things.     This  is  called  by  many  a  noHiPal  inability;  and  the 

5 


50 

axiom  of  our  brethren  is,  that  ih\3  natural  inability  destroys  moral 
obligation.  Now,  brother  Barnes  maintains  that  man  has  natural 
ability,  but  he  lacks  moral  ability — he  labours  under  a  moral  de- 
fect or  obstacle — a  defect,  or  obstacle,  or  inability  utterly  unre- 
movable, but  by  the  power  of  God.  Nothing  but  divine  grace  can 
remove  it — an  inability  in  that  very  faculty  which  gives  moral 
character  to  himself  and  all  his  actions — an  inability  of  will,  re- 
movable only  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Now,  I  repeat  it,  if  natural- 
inability  DESTROYS  MORAL  OBI>IGATION,  rt  fortiori,  MORAL  INABI- 
LITY DESTROYS  MORAL  OBLIGATION.  Let  the  advocato  of  human 
ability  malie  his  election.  Let  him  either  admit  man's  total  de- 
pravity in  understanding,  will,  and  aifections,  and  thus  become  a 
consistent  Culvinist:  or  let  him  go  over  entirely  and  maintain 
moral  ability,  and  thus  become  a  consistent  Arminian,  How  can 
a  rational  man  hold  this  halfway  course  ]  Surely,  the  attempt  to- 
suspend  himself  between  the  horns  of  this  dilemma,  by  a  meta- 
physical hair,  half  sawed  ol£  is  sufficient  evidence  of  defect  in> 
man's  understanding. 

6.  But  now,  to  retreat  into  Arminianism,  and  maintain  man's- 
Aril  abiMty,.is  ta abandon  the  Bible  and  Confession  of  Faith,  and 
especially  as  defended  by  the  great  Edwards,  in  his  unanswerable 
treatise  on  the  will.  Tlie  main  object  of  that  treatise  is  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  mail's  necessary  moral  dependence,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Arminian  doctrine  of  free  will.  And  this  object  he 
accomplishes  most  triumphantly.  Me  demonstrates  that  there  is 
no  self-determining  power  in  the  will ;  no  state  of  indifference, 
and  no  absolute  continoency  in  the  issues  of  human  action.  Tie 
defends  Calvinism  against  the  old  standing  objection,  that  it 
makes  man  a  mere  maehine,  destroys  his  accountability,  and 
makes  God  the  author  of  sin.  He  states,  and  abundantly  refutes 
what  is  now  supposed  to  be  new  theology ;  a  leading  feature  of 
which  is,  that  man's  will,  in  order  to  be  free,  must  have  choice, 
with  power  to  contrary  choice — he  states  this  doctrine  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Whitby,  in  such  passages  as  these,  viz.  "If  all  hu- 
man actions  are  necessary,  virtue  and  vice  must  be  empty  names  ; 
we  being  capable  of  nothing  tiiat  is  blameworthy  or  deserving' 
praise ;  for  who  can  blame  a  person  for  doing  only  what  he  could 
not  help,  or  judge  that  he  deserveth  praise  only  for  what  he  could 
not  avoid."  {Ed.  vol.  ii.  p.  133.)  "  Wlio  can  blame  a,  person  for 
dalng  what  he  could  not  help.''''  "  It  being  sensibly  unjust  ta 
punish  any  munfor  doing  that  which  was  never  in  his  power  to 
nvoid.^  And  to  confirm  his  opinion,  he  (Dr.  Whitby,)  quotes  one 
of  the  fathers,  saying,  "  Why  doth  God  command,  if  man  hath 
not  free  will  and  power  to  obey  V  And  he  cites  another,  saying, 
•'  A  law  is  given  to  him  that  can  turn  to  both  parts:  i.  e.  obey  or 
transgress  it ;  but  no  law  is  against  him  who  is  bound  by  na- 
ture.^^ — p.  151.  Agreeably  to  this,  Mr.  Barnes  observes,  "  If  Dr. 
Junkin  charges  me  with  error  in  this,  he  holds  the  contrary,  that 
js,  that  unregenerate  men  are  not  able  to  keep  the  command- 


51 

ftients;  that  there  is  no  ability  of  any  kind  to  yield  obediBn6i>; 
tliat  in  no  conceivable  sense  has  man  any  power  to  repent,  to  be- 
lieve, and  to  love  God,  or  to  love  his  fellow  men."  Dr.  J-ankiii 
does  maintain  this,  and  he  asks  you  to  compare  Mr.  Barnes  and 
Dr.  Whitby,  and  see  how  exactly  they  agree.  But  Dr.  Whitby 
has  been  battered  to  pieces  by  President  Edwards,  and  it  is  vain 
for  brother  Barnes  to  collect  the  broken  fiagments  of  his  system, 
and  construct  therefrom  a  habitation  for  Calvinistic  Presbyte- 
rian ism.     For, 

7.  I  do  affirm  (what  my  Brother  denies)  "  that  iinregenerate 
men  are  not  able  to  keep  the  coaimandments;  that  there  is  no 
ability  of  any  kind  to  yield  obedience;  that  in  no  conceivable 
sense  has  man  any  power  to  repent,  to  believe,  and  to  love  God,  or 
to  love  his  fellow  men." — Here  we  are  fairly  at  issue.  Mr.  Barnea 
affirms  (to  throw  oat  both  neg-atives)  that  man  unregenerated  has 
in  some  sense  ability  to  yield  obedience — to  repent — to  believe^ 
and  to  love  God;  I  peremptorily  deny.  And  I  remark  (a)  Ability 
is  an  efficiency,  capacity,  power  toward  the  production  of  an  et- 
fect.  The  term  is  relative,  "as  the  word  unable  is  relative,  and 
has  relation  to  ability,  or  endeavour,  which  is  insufficient."  (Ed- 
wards.) It  exists  where,  upon  exertion,  the  effect  follows,  andu 
rationa4  agent  is  said  to  be<thle  to  do  a  given  things  when  upon 
the  putting  forth  ef  his  energies  toward  that  thing,  it  is  done: 
and  when  it  does  not  follow  upon  such  exertion  of  his  powers,  he 
is  said  to6e  unable.  In  other  words,  abUily  implies  the  existence 
of  a  power  of  causation  and  always  refers  to  the  proper  effect,  (b) 
Every  elT'ect  is  proporti<^r>ed  to  its  cause  both  in  nature  or 
quality,  and  in  degree.  Like  produces  like.  Physical  ability  can 
produce  only  physical  results.  Strength  or  mere  brute  force  can 
effect  only  strength  or  resistance  of  the  same  kind.  Intellectual 
ability  can  be  efficient  only  to  intellectual  results.  Intellectual 
power  or  ability  may  plan  the  machinery  by  which  a  man  can  lift 
a  ton  weight:  but  to  say  that  a  man's  intellect  has  ability  to  lift  a 
ton,  is  absurd,  equally  with  affirming  that  mere  natural  strength 
is  able  to  plan  the  machinery.  Nor  is  the  absurdity  a  whit  less, 
when  it  is  affirmed  that  man  has  natural  ability  to  perform  a  moral 
act.  Each  part  of  his  nature — his  animal,  his  intellectual,  his 
moral  powers — has  its  own  jyecidiar  ability — one  faculty  or  class 
of  faculties  cannot  perforuj  the  functions  of  another.  Animal 
ability  (or  strength)  and  intellectual  or  moral  results:  intellectual 
ability  and  animal  or  moral  results  ;  and  m.oral  ability  and  intellec- 
tual or  animal  results,  are  all  equally  absurd,  (c)  To  yield  obe- 
dience is  a  moral  result — to  repent  (I  mean  saving  repentance)  is 
a  moral  operation — to  believe  in  and  love  God,  are  not  animal, 
nor  intellectual,  nor  physical  effects  or  results,  but  moral;  yea, 
the  very  essence  of  all  morality,  and  therefore  (d)  In  the  very 
nature  of  the  thing,  no  natural  ability  ol  any  conceivable  kind, 
can  qualify  man  to  repent  and  love  God.  Moral  ability  alone  can 
qualify  him — by  that  only  can  he  turn  to  God  and  live  in  him. 


52 

Now  thia  moral  ability  exists  not  in  the  ooul  unlxtrn  of  tlie  Spirit. 
There  death  reigns  until  the  Spirit  of  life  takes  up  his  abode 
there.  So  long  as  faith,  repentance,  and  love  to  God  constitute 
the  essence  of  morality,  bo  long  must  he,  who  is  in  a  state  of  moral 
death  remain  unable,  in  any  and  every  sense,  to  obey,  to  repent, 
to  love  God.  To  maintain  the  contrary,  is  to  subvert  the  entire 
Gospel,  and  to  make  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  in  man's  conversion 
unnecessary,  and  the  atonement  of  Christ  utterly  in  vain. 

8.  I  therefore  object  to  the  doctrine  of  human  ability  including 
the  manner  of  its  application.  Because  (a)  It  inflates  the  pride 
of  the  human  heart.  Tell  men  they  are  able  to  make  to  them- 
selves new  hearts,  if  tlicy  please — that  they  have  power  to  love 
God — as  much  ability  to  love  him  as  to  hate  him — they  can  do  the 
duty  of  repentance  and  faith  if  they  choose — tell  them  this  and 
you  swell  their  souls  in  vanity.  No  news  more  grateful  can  be 
poured  into  the  carnal  ear.  Nothing  can  be  better  calculated  to 
produce  two  effects  in  their  proper  time;  which  I  mention  as  far- 
ther reasoiiS  of  objection,  (b)  The  man  who  thinks  he  can  repent 
whenever  he  pleas^,  will,  almost  inevitably,  fold  up  his  hands 
and  defer  the  duty  until  a  convenient  season.  Every  minister  of 
experience  must  know,  that  to  arouse  men  from  the  slumbers  of 
tbis  belief,  is  the  first  step,  and  Oh  how  important  and  how  diffi- 
cult a  step  it  is,  to  induce  them  to  believe,  that  they  are  dead  and 
their  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God  !  This  is  the  broad  road  of 
Arminian  Antinomianism,  along  which  the  great  mass  of  humaq 
rrjillions  are  rushing  downward  to  perdition.  Tell  them  'you  are 
in  the  road  to  ruin' — we  know  it  and  we  don't  mean  to  follow  it 
long — we  can  turn  out  when  tee  please  and  shall  take  good  care 
to  do  it  in  time  for  safety.  Ah!  Mr.  Moderator,  you  know  this  is 
the  ruin  of  the  race.  The  pride  of  free  will  and  human  ahilily 
is  "the  broad  way"  to  hell,  (c)  When  these  believers  in  man's 
natural  ability  take  the  notion  to  be  converted  ;  when  the  time 
of  their  c/ioosmif  has  come,  if  it  ever  come,  then  they  are  the 
dupes  of  their  own  delusion.  They  convert  themselves  and  of 
course  they  can  undo  what  they  have  done :  they  can  convert 
themselves  back  again.  I  mean  to  say,  that  false  hopes  and  con- 
sequently spurious  revivals  are  a  necessary  result  of  the  doctrine 
we  oppose.  Simple  people,  who  were  horn  Arminians  and  believr 
ers  in  human  ability,  as  all  men  are,  considering  themselves  able, 
when  they  please,  to  repent,  believe,  &c.  thus  rest  in  their  con- 
fidence ;  and  upon  a  little  excitement,  take  up  false  hopes  and 
rush  to  the  wildest  extremes.  For  (d)  the  manner  of  teaching" 
the  doctrinfi  of  natural  ability  leads  to  delusion.  Even  if  the  dis- 
tinction were  unexceptionable  and  clear  in  itself;  yet  it  is  not 
kept  up;  but  without  qualification  men  are  said  to  be  able  to  re^ 
pent,  love  God,  &,c.  You  have  the  example  in  the  "  Defence'* 
before  you. 

9.  All  that  is  said  about  the  tyranny  of  demanding  of  men  du- 
ties beyond  their  present  ability,  m&y  be  said  witj)  equal  force  ajjcj 


53 

is  daily  said,  against  exacting'  the  claims  of  justice  at  all.  What 
cruelty!  to  demand  of  poor  imperfect  creatures  holy  obedience, 
and  to  punish  theui  for  non  compliance.  This  is  the  most  popular 
argument  of  Universalists  and  Unitarians  ag-ainst  the  doctrine  of 
God's  vmdictive  justice:  and  I  can  view  the  attempt  to  soften 
down  these  features  of  the  Gospel  which  make  it  unpopular  with 
the  carnal  mind,  in  no  other  than  the  most  unfavourable  light, 
I  know  very  well  meji  do  "  reject  the  system  which  professes  to 
hold"  the  doctrine  of  total  inability;  they  "  reject  it  with  abhor- 
rence," and  that  because  it  is  "  so  much  at  variance  with  the  great 
original  impressions  of  truth,  made  on  their  minds:"  but  I  know 
also  that  these  "  great  original  impressions  of  truth,"  are  false  im- 
pressions and  impressions  of  falsehood;  and  I  liave  no  desire  to 
mould  the  gospel  according  to  them.  And  I  "would  dare  to 
preach  it  to  Mr.  Barnes'  people,  or  to  any  other  people,"  in  its 
most  abhorrent  form.  Because  I  know  that  tiie  tendency  of  it  is  to 
stain  the  pcidfi  of  all  human  glory,  to  drive  man  out  of  himself— 
to  expel  from  his  soul  the  pride  of  "free  agency,"  and  make  hfm 
feel  that  he  is  totally  helpless  and  undone— that  there  is  no  ability 
in  himself  or  in  any  created  being  to  bring  deliverance,  and  thus 
to  compel  him  to  fall  down  upon  his  knees,  beat  upon  liis  bosom, 
and  cry  out  in  the  deep  consciousness  of  his  utter  inability,  "  God 
be  merciful  to  me  a  siimer." 

10.  This  doctrine  of  human  ability  and  the  argument  for  it 
founded  on  the  allegation,  that  unless  man  is  able  he  cannot  be 
bound,  you  will  allow  me  to  say  is  the  old  Pelagian  sentiment, 
and  the  modern  Arminian  hobby.  Pelagius  says,  "First  it  is  dis- 
puted whether  our  nature  is  debilitated  by  sin.  And  here,  in  my 
opinion,  the  first  inquiry  ought  to  be,  what  is  sin  1  Is  it  a  sub- 
stance, or  is  it  a  mere  name  devoid  of  substance?  not  a  thing,  not 
an  existence,  not  a  body,  not  any  thing  else  (which  has  a  separate 
existence)  but  an  act;  and  if  this  is  its  nature,  as  I  believe  it  i?, 
how  could  that  which  is  devoid  of  substance  debilitate  or  change 
human  nature]"  Again.  "Every  thing,  good  or  evil,  praise- 
worthy or  censurable  which  we  possess,  did  not  originate  with 
us,  but  is  done  by  us ;  for  we.  are  born  capable  of  both  good  and 
evil;  but  not  in  possession  of  these  qualities;  for  in  our  birth  we 
are  equally  destitute  of  virtue  and  vice;  and  previously  to  moral 
agency  there  is  nothing  in  man  but  that  which  God  created  in 
h?m."  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  ii.  p.  105.  Again.  "  Why  do  we  loiter  and 
blame  the  infirmity  of  nature?  He  would  not  command  us  what  is 
impossible."  Milner,  vol.  ii.  p.  385.  "  Now  if  before  the  law, 
and  long  before  the  coming  of  our  Saviour,  men  led  holy  lives, 
how  much  more  after  his  coming  are  they  able  to  do  it."  p.  384. 
And  yet  Milner  says,  "  He  speaks  of  the  grace  of  Christ,  expiation 
by  his  blood,  and  encouragement  by  his  example."  In  like  rnan- 
ner  Edwards,  who  studied  them  largely,  says  of  the  Arminians, 
"  They  strenuously  maintain,  that  U  would  be  unjust  in  God  to 

5* 


54 

require  any  thirij^  of  us  beyond  our  present  power  and  ability  to 
perform."  vol.  ii.  p.  152. 

Now  observe,  1.  Pelatrius  denies  any  moral  character  good  or 
bad,  prior  to  voluntary  action.  2.  lie  attempts  to  prove  that  sin 
coulti  not  debilitate  human  nature.  3.  lie  toadies  that  ability  is 
the  measure  of  duty — (iod  "  would  not  command  us  what  is  im- 
possible." That  "  would  be  the  definition  of  tyranny."  4.  This 
very  same  doctrine  is  lield  by  the  Arminian  school,  and  supported 
by  the  very  same  arg-unicnt.  God  would  be  a  tyrant  if  he  demand- 
ed of  us  any  thing  beyond  our  present  ability.  5.  Tiiese  are  the 
doctrines  and  the  argument  of  brother  Barnes  in  this  book.  I  say 
not  that  he  is  a  Pelagian  or  Arminian  ;  but  that  on  these  points 
he  holds  with  both,  and  wish  so  to  operate  on  his  mind  (and  the 
minds  of  others)  as  to  induce  him  to  reconsider  seriously  what  he 
has  written  ;  in  the  confident  assurance  that,  if  he  will  re-con- 
sider, he  will  retrace  and  retract  and  renounce  these  sentiments : 
and  in  so  doing  will  restore  peace  to  a  bleeding  church. 

CHARGE  IV; 

Mr.  Barnes  teaches,  That  faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind,  and  not 
a  principle,  and  is  itself  imputed  for  righteousness. 

To  this  the  accused  puts  in  a  plea  of  justification,  confessing 
the  fact  that  he  so  teaches,  and  maintaining  that  he  teaches  therein 
the  truth. 

Proof  p.  94.  "  Ahraham  helieved  God.**  In  the  Hebrew, 
*'  Abraham  believed  Jehovah.^''  The  sense  is  substantially  the 
same,  as  the  argument  turns  on  the  act  of  believing.  The  faith 
which  Abraham  exercised  was,  that  his  posterity  should  be  like 
the  stars  of  heaven  in  number.  This  promise  was  made  to  him 
when  he  had  no  child,  and  of  course  when  he  had  no  prospect  of 
such  a  posterity.  See  the  strength  and  nature  of  this  faith  fur- 
ther illustrated  in  verses  16 — 21.  Tbe  reason  why  it  was  counted 
to  him  for  righteousness  was,  that  it  was  such  a  strong,  direct, 
and  unwavering  act  of  confidence  in  the  promise  of  God.  And  it. 
TT-The  word  "  it"  here  evidently  refers  to  the  act  of  believing.  It 
does  Hot  refer  to  the  righteousness  of  another — of  God,  or  of  the 
Messiah  ;  but  the  discussion  is  solely  of  the  strong  act  of  Abra- 
ham's faith,  which  in  some  sense  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness. In  what  sense  this  was,  is  explained  directly  after.  All 
that  is  material  to  remark  here  is,  that  the  net  of  Abraham,  the 
strong  confidence  of  his  mind  in  the  promises  of  God,  his  un- 
wavering assurance  that  what  God  had  promised  he  would  per- 
fjrm,  was  received  for  righteousness.  The  same  thing  is  ex- 
pressed more  fully  in  verses  18 — 22.  Whon  therefore  the  right- 
eousness of  Christ  is  accounted  or  imputed  to  us;  when  it  is  said 
that  his  merits  are  transferred  and  reckoned  as  ours;  whatever 
may  be  the  truth  of  the  doctrine,  it  cannot  be  defended  by  this 
passage  of  Scripture.  Faith  is  always  an  act  of  the  mind.  It  is 
not  a  created  essence  which  is  placed  within  the  mind.     It  is  not 


55 

a  substance  created  independently  of  the  soul,  and  placed  within 
it  by  Alniig^hty  power.  It  is  not  a  principle,  for  the  expression,  a 
principle  of  J  ait  h,  is  as  unnrieaning-  as  a  principle  of  joy,  or  a 
principle  ol  sorrow,  or  a  principle  of  remorse.  God  promites,  the 
man  believes,  and  this  is  the  whole  of  it.  Beyond  the  mental 
operation,  there  is  nothing  in  the  case,  and  the  word  is  strictly 
limited  to  such  an  act  of  the  mind  throughout  the  Bible.  There 
is  not  a  place  that  can  be  adduced  where  the  word  means  any 
thing  else  than  an  act  of  the  mind,  exercised  in  relation  to  some 
object,  or  some  promise,  or  threatening,  or  declaration  of  some 
other  being."  p.  95.  "  Remark  (1.)  That  it  is  evidently  not  in- 
tended that  the  act  of  believing  on  the  part  of  Abraham,  was  the 
meritorious  ground  of  acceptance;  for  then  it  would  have  been  a 
work.  Faith  was  as  much  his  own  act,  as  any  act  of  obedience 
to  the  law.  (2)  The  design  of  the  Apostle  was  to  show  that  by 
the  laiD,  or  by  works,  man  could  not  be  justified.  Chap.  iii.  28. 
iv.  2.  (3)  Faith  was  not  that  which  the  law  required,  it  de- 
manded complete  and  perfect  obedience;  and  if  a  man  was  justi- 
fied by  faith,  it  was  in  some  other  way,  than  by  the  law.  (4)  As 
the  law  did  not  demand  this  [faith,  "  confidence  in  God,"  see  page 
30,]  and  as  faith  was  something  difTerent  from  the  demand  of  the 
law,  so  if  a  man  were  justified  by  that,  it  was  on  a  principle  al- 
together different  from  justification  by  works.  It  was  not  by  per- 
sonal merit.  It  was  not  by  complying  with  the  law.  It  was  in  a 
mode  entirely  different." 

Observation  1.  "  Faith  is  always  an  act  of  the  mind."  But 
now  Abraham  lived  an  hundred  years  at  least  after  he  was  called 
to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth.  How  many  acts  of  the  mind  did  he 
perform  during  that  space  J  Each  and  every  one  of  these  acts 
is  distinct.  When  the  mind  has  acted,  the  act  is  over,  and  past, 
and  gone;  and  yet  we  never  speak  of  faith  in  the  plural  number. 
We  never  say  Abraham's  faiths  ;  and  why  would  such  an  expres- 
sion be  absurd  ?  Obviously,  because  faith  is  not  the  act  itself; 
but  the  principle,  the  habit,  the  abiding  disposition  of  the  soul, 
whence  the  distinct  acts  of  believing  issue.     And  therefore, 

2.  We  always  speak  of  the  acts  of  faith.  So  Mr.  Barnes  says, 
"the  strong  act  of  Abraham's  faith."  He  could  not  write  without 
contradicting  his  own  doctrine.  What  sense  is  in  the  phrase, 
"  the  strong  act  of  Abraham's  act  of  the  mind  V  It  is  impossible 
to  introduce  this  definition  of  his,  without  multiplying  most 
strange  and  unmeaning  expressions.  If  "  faith  is  always  an  act 
of  the  mind,"  and  "not  a  principle"  of  action,  who  caii  explain 
the  phrase  "  an  act  of  faith." 

3,  If"  faith  is  an  act  of  the  mind  only,"  and  not  a  principle  of 
grace  in  the  soul,  from  which  the  acts  proceed,  then  it  must  fol- 
low that  Abraham  was  justified  by  an  act  of  his  mind,  which 
"  was  as  much  his  own  act,  as  any  act  of  obedience  to  the  law." 
Here  it  is  indubitably  taught,  tha^  the  individual,  personal  act  of 
Abraham's  mind  is  the  ground  of  his  justification  before  God. 


56 

Not  the  righteousness  of  the  Saviour,  as  the  church  has  alwaj^a 
believed,  hut  the  act  of  the  man  hhnse{f  wae  imputed  to  him  lor 
righteousness.   "  TJie  word  it,"  says  Mr.  Barnes,  "  here  evidently 
refers  to  the  act  of  believing-.     It  does  not  refer  to  the  righteous- 
ness of  another — of  God,  or  of  the  Messiah."  Now  it  is  ngjjteous- 
ness  which  justifies — wiien  a  man  has  the  righteousness  required 
by  the  law,  he  must  and  will  be  justified  by  the  judge.     If,  there- 
fore, Abraham's  own  act  is  his  righteousness — is  the  ground  and 
cause  of  his  being  justified — he  is  not  justified  by  Christ's  merits 
at  all,  but  by  his  own  act     But  brother  Barnes  will  say,  you 
draw  an  inference  from  my  language  which  I  deny ;  lam  respon- 
sible not  for  your  inferences,  but  only  for  my  own  acts.    In  reply, 
i  aver  it  is  not  so.     It  is  not  an  inference  from  his  position.     It  is 
t!ie  very  position  itself.     Abraham's  act  is  his  own,  and  this,  his 
o  vn  act,  is  put  down  as  his  own  righteousness.     This  is  Mr. 
Birnes' doctrine.     He  teaches  it.     Very  true,  he  denies  it.     But 
ir  ill  three  lines  a  man  denies  and  teaches  the  same  thing,  let  him 
btar  the  blame.     " In  this  act,  faith  is  a  mere  instrument — a  con- 
dition on  which  men  may  be  treated  as  righteous."     "  In  this  act, 
faith,"  which  "  is  an  act  of  the  mind,"  is  "a  mere  instrument," 
and  "a  condition"  of  salvation.     This  is  salvation  by  works,  and 
yet  the  author  denies  it  in  the  same  breath.     Oh,  Sir,  how  difii- 
eult  it  is  to  get  clear  of  the  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness! 
how  difficult  it  is  to  make  a  man  believe  that  his  own  act  is  not 
his  own  work !     To  escape  from  this  difficulty,  he  has  found  it 
necessary  to  maintain  one  of  the  strangest  positions  ever  laid 
down  by  a  moralist,  viz.  that  confidence  in  God  is  not  required 
by  his  law.     For  he  perceived  that  if  confidence  in  God  were  re- 
quired by  his  law,  and  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  confidence  in 
God,  he  was  justified  by  an  act  of  obedience  to  law — by  a  work. 
Reduced  to  the  dilemma  of  maintaining  either  that  Abraham  was 
justified  by  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  or  that  confidence  in  God 
js  not  required  by  his  law,  he  chooses  the  latter  as  the  lesser  evil. 
You  are  surprised  and  grieved !     So  am  I,  but  it  is  even  so.     Mr, 
Barnes  says,  "  Faith  was  not  that  which  the  law  required.     As 
the  law  did  not  demand  this;  and  as  faith  was  something  diffe- 
rent from  the  demand  of  the  law."     Now,  on  p.  30,  he  translates 
Ttvdti^,)  faith,  by  the  phrase,  "confidence  in  God,"  and  uses  it 
not  less  than  seven  times  on  that  page  ;  and  so  on  p.  94,  "  confi- 
dence in  the  promise  of  God" — "strong  confidence  of  his  mind"— 
confidence  in  God  not  required  by  his  law  ! 

4.  Another  difficulty  of  this  system  which  denies  faith  to  be  a 
habit  or  fixed  principle  of  the  renewed  man  is,  thai  a  Christian 
can  have  no  character:  he  is  a  believer,  and  consequently  a  justi- 
fied man,  only  during  the  act:  but  the  act  is  momentary,  and 
wlien  it  is  past  and  gone,  the  man  is  not  a  believer;  he  is  not  in 
a  justified  state  beyond  the  continuity  of  the  act  of  the  mind. 
Now  from   all  these,  and  some  other  difficulties,  the  plain  and 


57 

simple  doctrine  of  our  (Confession,  and  of  the  Bible  will  deliver  us. 
What  then  is  faith  according  to  these?     I  answer, 

5.  Saving:  Faith  is  a  gracious  principle — a  holy  habit — an 
abiding  fixed  disposition  of  the  soul — whereby  it  receives  and 
rests  upon  the  testimonies  of  God  concerning  his  Son  and  salva- 
tion through  his  righteousness.  1  had  written  the  above,  before 
I  asked  a  friend  at  my  elbow  (in  whose  house  I  am  sojourning) 
for  Dr.  Alexander's  Bible  Dictionary ;  and  here  I  put  down  his 
definition,  viz.  "  Saving  faith,  is  that  gracious  quality,  principle, 
or  habit,  wrought  in  the  heart,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  taking  the 
things  of  Christ  and  showing  them  to  us,  whereby  we  receive  and 
rest  on  Christ  alone  for  salvation,  as  he  is  offered  to  us  in  the 
gospel."    Now  that  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  standards  is  evident. 

Conf.  xiv.  1.  "  The  grace  of  faith,  whereby  the  elect  are  ena- 
bled to  believe  to  the  saving  of  their  souls,  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  in  their  hearts  :  *  *  *  it  is  increased  and  strengthened." 
ii.  "  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth,"  &:c.  "But  the  princi- 
pal acts  of  saving  faith,  are,  accepting,  receiving,  and  resting  on 
Christ  alone,"  &c,  Larg.  Cat.  72.  "  Justifying  faith  is  a  saying 
grace  '^  *  *  ;  whereby  he  *  *  *  receiveth  and  resteth  on  Christ," 
i&c.  73.  "  Faith  justifies  a  sinner  in  the  sight  of  God,  not  because 
of  those  other  graces  which  do  always  accompany  it,  or  of  good 
works  which  are  the  fruits  of  it;  nor  as  if  the  grace  of  faith,  or 
Any  act  thereof,  were  imputed  to  him  for  his  justification,"  &c. 
Here  I  shall  be  indulged  in  a  few  particulars.  («)  Saving  faith  is 
a  grace.  •'  By  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith" — Ep.  ii.  8. 
•'  Who  believe  according  to  the  working  of  his  mighty  power." — 
i.  19.  Now  grace  "  is  free  favour,  unmerited  kindness.'^  "  The 
new  spiritual  principle  produced  in  the  heart  by  regeneration," 
It  is  therefore  not  the  act  of  the  sinner's  mind,  but  the  prin- 
ciple from  which  the  acts  do  proceed.  This  is  evident,  (b)  be- 
cause faith  is  weak  or  strong — it  is  increased,  it  grows  by  its 
exercise.  "Lord  increase  our  faith,"  Luke  xvii.  5.  Lord  in- 
crease our  act  of  the  mind  !  No,  but  strengthen  the  holy  habit — 
the  gracious  principle,  (c)  "  By  this  faith,  a  Christian  believeth." 
By  this  act  of  his  mind,  a  Christian  acteth  with  his  mind !  Mani- 
festl}^  faith  is  the  principle,  which  is  called  into  action  when  the 
Christian  believeth — "wherehy  he  receiveth  Christ" — "the  prin- 
cipal acts  of  saving  faith" — the  principal  acts  of  the  acts  of  the 
mind !  But  enough  of  this.  Mr.  Barnes  admits  it.  He  says, 
"The  great,  leading,  deeply-cherished  principle  of  his  [the  be- 
liever's] soul  is  to  obey  God,  It  becomes  the  habitual  bent  and 
disposition  of  his  mind  ;  an  inclination  or  disposition,  for  the  forma- 
tion and  cherishing  of  which,  he  is  responsible'— an  inclination,  or 
preference,  or  disposition  which  lies  back  of  any  specific  act  of 
believing,"  Oh,  si  sic  omnia!  Yet  even  here,  he  would  be  more 
patisflictory,  if  he  had  attributed  this  principle  to  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not,  as  seems-  to  be  the  case,  to  the  man's 
own  eourse  of  action,     "It  becomes  the  habitual  bent,"  but  it  sa 


58 

becomes  by  renewing-  grace.  Had  my  brother  confessed  this  at 
first,  and  condemned  his  doctrine,  that  faith  exists  only  in  the  act, 
he  had  done  nol)ly,  and  saved  time  and  labour.  He  has  now 
found  out  that  "a  principle  of  faith  is  not  unmeaning,  no  more 
■than  a  principle  of  confidence  in  God."    Now  I  rejoice  to  obricrve. 

6.  That  1  can  nnite  with  brother  Barnes  in  pressing  tlte<jbliga- 
tion  upon  the  believing  sinner,  to  cherish  this  principle,  and  carry 
it  on  to  perfection.  Jt  grows  by  its  exercise;  and  when  Peter 
commands  us  to  grow  in  grace,  my  soul  feels  the  moral  bonds  of 
that  command.  But  I  would  always  go  farther,  and  press  tWe 
obligation  upon  the  whole  world.  The  unregenerate — all  mf-n 
who  hear  it — are  bound  by  the  same  divine  authority  whicli  says, 
"  worship  God,"  "  remember  the  Sabbath  day,"  to  believe  the  gos- 
pel, to  repent  of  their  sins,  and  live  in  the  practice  of  holy  obe- 
dience. But  then  I  deny  that  this  obligation  is  ever  either  i«- 
creased  or  diminished  by  man's  ability  or  his  inability.  It  rests 
net  at  all  on  such  a  basis,  but  simply  on  the  immutable  authority 
of  the  everlasting  God.  The  will  of  God,  not  the  ability  of  man, 
is  the  basis  and  measure  of  moral  obligation. 

7.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  reply  to  the  remarks  of  brother 
Barnes,  about  faith  being  a  created  essence,  put  into  the  soul — or 
about  my  supposing  "that  the  mind  does  not  act  in  believing." 
This  is  too  futile,  and  I  know  not  why  such  absurdities  should  be 
imputed  to  me. 

8.  But  I  must  be  allowed  to  set  the  annotator  and  the  Presby- 
terian standards  in  juxtaposition  on  another  point.  He  says,  "  the 
4ict  of  Abrahaai" — not  "  the  righteousness  of  another — of  God,  or 
of  the  Messiah;^'  but  "the  act  of  Abraham,  the  strong  confidence 
of  his  mind,  was  received  for  righteousness."  The  standards 
specifically  deny  this  Vf8ry  position.  Lar.  Cat.  p.  73.  "  Nor  as  if 
the  grace  of  faith,  or  any  act  thereof,  wer<e  imputed  to  him  for 
justification."  I  Just  leave  these  two  statements  to  a  perpetual 
menace  of  each  other,  and  add  my 

9th  Observation,  viz.  That  taith  is  to  be  understood  objectively 
in  the  passage -(Rom.  iv.  3,)  under  consideration.  That  is,  when 
Abraham's  feith  is  said  to  be  imputed  to  hinii  for  righteousness,  the 
object  on  which  his  faith  terminates  or  rests,  is  so  reckoned  for 
righteousness.  That  is,  the  righteousness  ot  Christ,  or  Christ  as 
the  Lord  our  Righteousness.  Now,  that  this  is  the  true  sense  is 
evident,  because  "Abraham  rejoiced,"  says  the  Redeemer,  "to  see 
my  day,  and  he  saw  it  and  was  glad ;"  John  viii.  5,  0.  Can  any 
man  doubt  for  a  moment  that  Abraham's  seeing  Christ's  day,  was 
his  believing  in  the  promised  Messiah  and  trusting  to  his  righte- 
ousness alone  ? 

On  this  point  let  «s  hear  the  voice  of  the  dead.  Doctor  Wilson, 
the  predecessor  of  Mr.  Barnes,  has  spoken  so  admirably  on  it,  that 
you  will  doubtless  hear  him  with  pleasure.  In  his  notes  on  Ridg- 
ley,  vol.  in.  p.  lOS,  he  states  the  xloctrine  thus,  "  Others,  [in  the 
jTsargiB  he  refers  to  Whitby  and  Macknight,  two  distinguished 


59 

Arminians]  understand  Abraham  to  have  been  justified  on  the  ac?* 
count  of  the  mere  act  of  believing  :" — They  make  faith  a  work  erf" 
merit.  Doctor  Wilson  rejects  this  notion,  thus,  "Faith  is  the 
mind's  assent  to  external  evidence  ;  faith  thus  strictly  considered 
as  an  act,  is  man's  act,  as  much  so  as  any  can  be,  and  as  the  un- 
derstanding- at  least  in  its  application  to  the  evidence  must  be  ac- 
companied by  the  consent  of  the  will,  here  is  every  thing  that  is 
necessary  to  constitute  a  work,  and  accordingly  it  is  commanded 
as  a  duty,  the  neglect  of  which  is  criminal :" — "  that  it  is  not  the 
mere  act  of  believing  in  Christ  which  is  the  ground  of  such  justi- 
fication is  plain  from  this,  that  he  expresses  the  same  thing  by 
the  words,  being  justified  by  Christ."  If  it  is  true  that  we  are 
justified  by  faith,  and  also  that  we  are  justified  by  Christ,  it  must 
be  meant  in  different  senses,  and  to  give  effect  to  these  words  dif- 
ferently connected,  it  seems  necessary  to  suppo&e  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  as  the  meritorious  cause  or  ground  of  justification, 
and  faith  the  instrumental." — "It  is  not  the  holiness  of  his  faith 
that  is  accounted  for  righteousness  to  him ;  faith  is  a  holy  duty. 
[Brother  Barnes  denies  this,  in  saying  that  faith  is  not  required  by 
the  law,]  but  not  more  so  than  some  others,  and  not  so  much  so  as 
love,  "  now  abideth  faith,  hope,  love,  and  the  greatest  of  these  is 
love."  Nor  are  Christians  ever  said  to  be  justified  by  love,  joy, 
peace,  patience,  or  by  any  other  grace  except  by  faith, — and  no 
doubt  it  is  because  faith  lays  hold  on  him  for  whose  sake  alone  we 
can  be  justified." 

"  Or  faith  may  be  put  for  its  object  as  the  words  fear,  hope,  joy, 
and  love  are.  God  is  our  fear,  our  hope,  &c.  '  Thy  faith  hath 
saved  thee,'  it  was  not  her  faith  but  its  object,  Christ's  power, 
that  healed  her." 

"The  seed  which  was  promised,"  continues  Dr.  Wikon,  "em- 
braced Christ,  whose  day  Abraham  saw  afar  off";  so  this  faith  [he 
is  speaking  of  Abraham's  faith,  in  the  precise  case  where  Mr. 
Biimes  insists  that  his  act  itself  is  imputed  for  righteousness,]  had 
the  Redeemer  for  its  object.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians  there 
follow  the  quotation  these  words,  'as  many  as  are  of  faith  are  the 
children  of  Abraham,'  these  are  called  his  spiritual  seed,  and  be- 
lieve in  Christ,  now  if  all  who  believe  in  Christ  are  thereby  the 
children  of  Abraham,  and  Abraham  their  lather  or  pattern  of  faith, 
his  faith  must  have  been  of  the  same  kind," — 

Thus,  Dr.  Wilson  explicitly  maintains,  that  not  Abraham's 
faith — not  the  act  of  his  mind,  but  the  object  of  that  act,  that  is, 
the  righteousness  of  Messiah,  was  reckoned  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness, Mr.  Barnes  sets  himself  in  his  comment  to  deny  and  reject 
this.  Dr.  Wilson  teaches,  that  faith,^ "  considered  as  an  act,  is 
man's  act,"  and  is  a  work ;  and  he  argues,  that  to  insist  that  the 
act  itself  was  imputed  to  Abraham  for  righteousness,  [the  precise 
thing  which  Mr.  Barnes  does  insist  on]  is  to  maintain  justification 
by  works.  And  he  proves  most  conclusively,  that,  the  term  faith 
ought  to  be  understood  objectively — it "  had  the  Redeemer  for  its 


60 

object."  And  on  p.  128, 129,  using  tlie  language  of  anotlipr,  he 
says,  "  As  the  ri^^hteousness  by  which  the  sinner  is  justified,  is 
the  sole  work  of  Christybr  hiin^  so  this  [faith]  is  the  sole  work  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  him.'''' — "  Thus  we  see  that  faith  is  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  the  righteousness  which  justifies." — The  righteousness 
of  Christ  and  not  the  "act  of  the  mind,  is  that  which  is  imputed," 
in  order  to  justification. 

11.  Finally^  that  the  accused  has  used  some  expression  seem- 
ing to  admit  a  doctrine  utterly  inconsistent  with  his  main  posi- 
tion, does  not  affect  the  truth  of  this  charge.  He  denies  thaf 
*'  the  act  of  believing  on  the  part  of  Abraham,  was  the  meritori- 
ous ground  of  acceptance," — and  speaks  of  "  the  merit  by  which 
all  this  is  obtained,  as,  the  work  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." — 
But  when  a  writer  lays  down  and  laboriously  supports  an  erro- 
neous sentiment,  and  afterwards,  looking  to  consequences, 
throws  in  a  phrase  or  two  as  a  salvo,  savouring  of  the  opposite 
doctrine,  we  are  bound  to  receive  his  main  positions  as  his  reaf 
meaning.  Yet  in  his  Defence,  where  he  reiterates  these  expres- 
sions, he  soon  looses  sight  of  them  and  reverts  to  his  old  ground. 
He  says,  "  the  grand  desideratum  in  a  plan  of  salvation  was  to 
restore  to  an  alienated  world,  coufidcnce  in  the  existence,  the  ^go- 
vernment  and  the  perfections  of  God.  This  Abraham  evinced  ; 
•  and  it  was  such  a  slate  of  mind  as  furnished  the  proper  evidence 
of  reconciliation,  and  he  was  reckoned  as  in  fact  a  justified  man. 
His  faith  in  God  was  so  strong  as  to  give  an  unerring  indication 
that  he  was  recovered,  and  was  reckoned  to  him  ♦'  for  righteous- 
ness," or  »*  in  order  to  justification,"  just  as  "  faith  is  now." 
Here  faith  is  "  a  state  of  mind,"  furnishing  "  evidence  of  recon- 
ciliation,"— "a  slate  of  mind  to  which  God  had  promised  accep- 
tance,"— and  that  state  of  mind,  is  his  own  act — "  beyond  the 
mental  operation,  there  is  nothing  in  the  case."  Whether  the 
Bible  and  Standards  of  out  church  can  be  reconciled  with  these 
views,  it  is  for  the  court  to  judge. 

CHARGE  V. 

^Mr.  Barnes  denies,  "That  God  entered  into  corenant  with 
Adam,  constituting  him  a  federal  or  covenant  bead  and  repre- 
sentative to  all  his  natural  descendants." 

Proof  1.  p.  114.  "From  these  remarks  it  is  clear  that  the 
apostle  does  not  refer  to  the  man  here  from  any  idea  that  there  was 
any  particular  covenant  transaction  with  him;  but  that  he  means 
to  speak  of  it  in  the  usual  popular  sense ;  referring  to  him  as 
the  fountain  of  all  the  woes  that  sin  has  introduced  into  the 
world." 

Proof  2.  p.  128.  "The  most  common  [explanation]  has 
been  that  Adam  was  the  represejitative  of  the  race ;  that  he  was 
a  cover^ant  head,  and  his  sin  was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and 
that  they  were  held  liable  to  punishment  for  it,  as  if  they  had 


61 

committed  it  themselves.    But  to  this  ther6  are  great  and  in- 
superable  objections. 

(1)  There  is  not  one  word  of  it  in  the  Bible.  Neither  the  term 
representative,  covenant,  or  impute  are  ever  applied  to  the  trans- 
action in  the  sacred  Scriptures.  (2.)  It  is  a  mere  philosophical 
theory." 

Proofs,  p.  115.     As  quoted  under  charge  IL 

Proof,  4.  p.  121.,  "A  comparison  is  also  instituted  between 
Adam  and  Christ  in  1  Cor.  xv.  22 — 25.  The  reason  is  not  that 
Adam  was  the  representative  or  federal  head  of  the  human  race, 
about  which  the  apostle  says  nothina,  and  which  is  not  even 
implied,  but  that  he  was  the  first  of  the  race  ;  he  was  the  foun- 
tain, the  head,  the  lather  ;  and  the  consequences  of  that  first  act 
introducing  sin  into  the  world,  could  be  se^^  every  where.  The 
words  representative  -and  federal  head  are  never  applied  to  Adam 
in  the  Bible.  The  reason  is,  that  the  word  representative  implies 
an  idea  which  could  not  have  existed  in  the  case — the  consent  of 
those  who  are  represented:  Besides  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that 
they  acted  in  him,  or  by  him  ;  or  that  he  acted  for  them.  No 
passage  has  ever  yet  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine." 

Proofs,  p.  128.  "(2)  Nothing  is  said  of  a  covenant  with 
him,  [Adam.]  No  where  in  the  Scriptures  is  the  term  covenant 
applied  to  any  transaction  with  Adam.  (3)  All  that  is  estab- 
lished here  is  the  simple  fact  that  Adam  sinned,  and  that  this 
made  it  cettain  that  all  his  posterity  would  be  sinners.  Beyond 
this  the  language  of  the  apostle  does  not  go;  and  all  else  that 
has  been  said  of  this  is  the  result  of  mere  philosophical  specu- 
lation. (4)  This/ac/  is  one  that  is  apparent;  and  that  accords 
with  all  the  analogy  in  the  moral  government  of  God.  The 
drunkard  secures  commonly  as  a  result,  that  his  family  will  be 
reduced  to  beggary,  want,  and  wo.  His  sin  is  commonly  the 
certain  occasion  of  their  being  sinners;  and  the  immediate  cause 
of  their  loss  of  property  and  comfort,  of  their  being  overwhelmed 
in  wretchedness  and  grief.  A  murderer  will  entail  disgrace  and 
shame  on  his  family." 

1.  Under  Charge  II.  it  has  been  fully  proved,  that  Mr.  Barnes 
holds  Adam  ignorant  to  such  a  deg!-ee  that  it  is  impossible  he 
should  have  known  any  thing  about  a  covenant.  If  that  charge 
is  substantiated  then  there  was  no  covenant  established  with 
Adam. 

2.  But  before  we  proceed  to  the  other  proofs,  let  us  settle 
the  idea  of  a  covenant.  The  Hebrbw  word  (Berith,)  as  critics 
generally  agree,  is  formed  from  a  verb  that  signifies  to  cut,  and 
has  reference  to  the  ceremony  of  cutting,  killing,  or  dividing  an 
animal,  usually  slaughtered  upon  occasion  of  establishing  im- 
portant agreements  between  men.  See  .ler.  xxxiv.  18 — 20.  This 
ceremony  most  likely  had  its  origin  in  the  divine  institution  of 
sacrifices,  with  which  Moses  was  familiar,  and  whence  he  bor- 
rowed the  term.     Herman  Wltsiws  speaks   the  truth  when  he 

6 


62 

says,  vol.  I.  p.  47,  48.  "  lmpro|jerly  it  denotes  the  following 
things;  1.  An  immuiable  ordinance  about  any  thing.  In  this 
sense  God  mentions,  his  covenant  of  the  day  and  of  the  nighty—- 
2.  "A  sure  and  stable  promise,  though  it  be  not  mutual. —  This 
is  my  covenant  with  them,  my  ^Spirit  shall  not  depart  from  them^ 
Is,  Ixix.  21.  3.  "  It  signifies  also  z  precept ,-  and  to  cut  acovenant 
is  io  give  a  precept.^'' — "  Bui  properly^  it  signifies  a  mutual  agree- 
ment between  parties  with  respect  to  something.^^  On  p.  51,  he 
says,  Having  premised  these  things  in  general  about  the  terms, 
let  us  now  inquire  into  the  thing  itself,  and  the  nature  of  the  co- 
venant of  God  with  man;  which  I  thus  define  :  A  covenant  of 
God  with  man  is  an  agreement  between  God  and  man,  about  the 
method  of  obtaining  consummate  happiness,  with  the  addition  of  a 
threatening  of  eternal  destruction,  luith  which  the  dcspiscr  of  the  hap- 
piness offered  in  that  way  is  to  be  punished.''^  The  covenant  on 
God's  part  comprises  three  things  in  the  whole.  1.  ^  promise 
of  consummate  happiness  in  eternal  life.  2.  A  designation  and 
prescription  of  the  condition,  on  the  performance  of  which,  man 
acquires  a  right  to  the  promise.  3.  A  penal  sanction  against 
those  who  do  not  stand  by  the  prescribed  condition."  p.  52. 
And  p.  53.  "It  becomes  the  covenant  of  two  parties,  when  man 
consents  thereunto,  embracing  the  good  promised  by  God,  engag- 
ing io  an  exact  observance  of  the  condition  required,  and,  upon  the 
violation  thereof  voluntarily  owning  himself  obnoxious  to  the 
threatened  curse.^^  If  asked  for  a  definition  of  my  own  I  would 
say,  'A  covenant  is  a  mutual  agreement  between  two  or  more 
parties,  containing  a  stipulation  (or  statement  of  something  to 
be  done)  on  the  one  part,  and  a  restipulation  corresponding  to  it 
on  the  other,  and  attended  by  a  penal  sanction.'  It  requires 
properly,  1.  Intelligent  agents.  2.  (of  course,)  The  exercise  of 
volition  in  the  parties.  3.  A  proposition  made  by  the  one  to  the 
other,  of  something  to  be  done.  4.  A  condition  of  reward  offer- 
ed in  the  proposition,  when  the  other  party  shall  have  fulfilled 
his  condition.  5.  A  condition  of  penalty  threatened,  if  he  shall 
not  do  the  thing  set  forth  in  the  proposition,  or  upon  the  other 
party  if  he  shall  withhold  the  promised  reward,  after  the  thing 
shall  have  been  done.  This  is  the  idea  of  a  covenant,  and  it  is 
one  of  the  simplest  and  plainest  things  in  the  theory  and  prac- 
tice of  morals.  I  hire  a  servant  for  ten  dollars  per  month,  to  do 
certain  woik.  He  does  his  work,  agreeably  to  contract,  and  re- 
ceives his  pay.  This  is  a  simple  contract  or  bargain.  I  propose 
to  a  builder  to  erect  me  a  house,  according  to  a  plan  submitted,  for 
a  sum  of  a  thousand  dollars,  within  a  given  time,  or  pay  a  hundred 
dollars  damages;  and  if  I  shall  not  pay  him,  on  the  delivery  of 
the  key  at  the  given  time,  1  shall  forfeit  a  hundred  dollars. 
He  agrees  to  my  proposition.  This  is  a  covenant,  and  it 
differs  from  a  simple  contract  only  in  its  formality  ;  just  as  a 
simile,  in  rhetoric,  differs  from  a  metaphor.  Suppose  Abraham 
had  said  to  Eleazer  his  servant,  ♦  Go  and  take  a  wife  to  my  son 


G3 

Isaac  from  my  kindred,  and  return  with  her  within  three  months, 
and  I  will  give  thee  thy  freedom  and  an  outfit  of  five  camels  and 
and  an  hundred  sheep,  a  tent,  and  furniture.  But  if  thou  neglect 
or  refuse,  I  will  deprive  thee  of  thy  stewardship,  and  yet  retain 
thee  as  a  slave.'  Eleazer,  panting  for  freedom  and  comparative 
independent  affluence,  assents  to  the  proposition.  It  is  now  a 
covenant,  just  as  complete  as  the  preceding,  except  that  the  pe- 
nalty on  Abraham,  if  he  shall  refuse  to  do  his  part,  is  not  ex- 
pressed, and  though  implied,  it  might  be  difficult  for  the  weaker 
to  enforce  its  exaction.  Again,  1  say  to  my  little  boy,  '*  My 
son,  if  you'll  be  a  good  boy,  kind  to  your  mother,  and  diligent 
in  your  studies  until  I  return  home,  I'll  bring  you  a  new  cap  ; 
and  if  you  don't  I'll  chastise  you.  Will  you  agree  to  if?  Yes, 
that  I  will."  Here  is  a  covenant.  Here  is  simplicity  itself,  and 
yet  men  pretend  that  young  people  have  difficulty  in  understand- 
ing the  old  theology  of  the  covenants.  Had  the  builder,  the 
steward  of  Abraham,  or  my  son  any  difficulty  T  Oh  no !  it  is 
the  grandeur  of  its  simplicity  which  commends  the  covenant  of 
God  to  the  people  of  his  love.  Now,  Mr.  Barnes  denies  God's 
covenant  with  Adam. 

3.  Proof  1.  When  Paul  says,  "  by  one  man  sin  entered  into 
the  world,"  brother  Barnes  insists  that ''  he  does  not  refer  to  the 
man  here  from  any  idea  that  there  was  any  particular  covenant 
transaction  with  him."  Is  not  this  a  denial  of  the  covenant  T 
Could  any  man  who  believes  in  the  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of 
works,  use  such  terms]  But,  p.  128,  he  says,  *' The  most 
common  explanation  has  been,  that  Adam  was  the  representative 
of  the  race;  that  he  was  a  covenant  head,  &c,"  "  But,"  adds 
he,  "  to  this  there  are  great  and  insuperable  objections."  Can 
language  be  more  explicit]  *' But  to  this" — to  what  ?  Why, 
to  the/ac/  stated  before,  that  Adam  was  a  covenant  head — a  re- 
presentative. "It  is  a  mere  philosophical  theory."  "It" — 
what]  Not  surely  the  terms  covenant^  representative^  federal 
head ;  nay  but  the  fact  of  Adam's  standing  in  this  moral  relation 
to  his  posterity  and  to  God — not  that  the  terms  covenant  and  re- 
present are  or  are  not  used  in  the  Bible,  but  the  moral  headship — 
the  relation  itself — the  moral  connexion  "is  a  mere  philosophical 
theory." 

Proof  4.  Here  the  moral  or  legal  connexion  between  Adam 
and  his  posterity  is  rejected  both  in  name  and  thing.  He  denies 
not  simply  that  the  tprms  are  used,  but  the  things — "not  that 
Adam  was  the  representative  or  federal  head  of  the  race" — this 
*'  is  not  even  implied."  And  he  gives  a  reason  why  it  could  not 
be, .  viz.  "  the  word  representative  implies  an  idea  which  could  not 
have  existed  in  the  case,  the  consent  of  those  who  are  represented.*^ 
Thus  you  see  how  precise  he  is;  not  the  term  but  the  idea — the 
thing  meant  is  rejected.  He  with  clearness  and  perspicuity  of 
language  denies  the  moral  connexion — "  the  Bible  does  not  teach 
that  they  acted  in  iiim,  or  by  him;  or  that  he  acted /or  them." 


G4 

The  italics  are  his  own,  and  they  arc  put  in  to  give  fcrrce  to  his 
denial  that  Adam  acted  for  his  posterity.  No  moral  connexion 
exists.  The  whole  is  resolved  into  mere  physical,  unimal  head- 
ship. 

Proof  5.  "  Nothing-  is  said  of  a  covenant  with  Adam."  And 
he  illustrates  by  reference  to  the  effects  of  a  drunkard's  conduct 
upon  his  family,  and  a  murderer's.  lie  most  unequivocally  and 
peremptorily  denies  any  other  relation  between  Adam  and  his  pos- 
terity, than  exists  between  the  drunkard  and  his.  Adam's  sin 
made  it  certain  that  all  his  children  would  be  sinners.  But  the 
drunkard's  sin  does  not  make  it  certain  that  all  his  children  will 
be  drunkards.  It  very  often  happens  that  they  shun  the  vice  of 
their  parent  and  become  most  exemplary  men.  Some  of  the  first 
men  in  the  church  and  the  world  have  had  intemperate  parents. 
There  is  absolutely  no  moral  connexion  between  them  to  secure 
such  a  result.  There  is  a  connexion  of  physical  relation,  and  this 
is  all  Mr.  Barnes  seems  to  admit  in  the  case  of  Adam.  This  will 
appear  hereafter:  it  has  appeared  that  he  denies  Adam's  posterity 
to  be  sinners,  prior  to  moral  action  :  and  they  all  do  exist  prior  to 
moral  action ;  so  that  he  denies  that  Adam's  sin  made  any  of  his 
posterity  sinners.  And  it  will  further  appear,  that  he  denies  their 
liability  to  suffer  punishment  on  account  of  his  sin :  so  that  the  de- 
claration of  Paul,  that  "by  the  disobedience  of  one  many  were 
made  sinners,"  is  rejected,  or  must  be  explained  away.  The  rela- 
tions of  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  physical,  only  there  is  no  mo- 
ral unity — they  are  not  one  moral  and  corporate  body  as  it  were, 
with  their  parent  as  head,  acting  ^^fur  them."  "No  passage," 
says  Mr.  Barnes,  "  has  ever  been  found  that  stated  this  doctrine^? 
that  he  acted  for  them." 

What  says  the  Constitution  of  our  church? 

Conf.  VII.  *'  Of  God's  covenant  with  man.''''  This  is  the  head» 
ing  of  the  chapter,  and  might  of  itself  be  sufficient  to  prove  the 
opposition  of  Mr.  Barnes  to  our  standards.  Section  first  speaks  of 
God's  condescension  to  man,  "  which  he  hath  been  pleased  to  ex- 
press by  way  of  covenant."  Sect.  II.  "  The  first  covenant  made 
with  man  was  a  covenant  of  works,  wherein  life  was  promised  to 
Adam,  and  in  him  to  his  posterity,  upon  condition  of  perfect  and 
personal  obedience,"  Chapter  xix.  1.  "God  gave  to  Adam  a 
law,  as  a  covenant  of  works,  by  which  he  bound  him  and  all 
his  posterity  to  personal,  entire,  and  perpetual  obedience ;  pro- 
mised life  upon  the  fulfilling,  and  threatened  death  upon  the 
breacii  of  it;  and  endued  him  with  power  to  obey  it."  Lar.  Cat. 
20. — "  entering  into  a  covenant  of  life  with  him  upon  condition," 
&c.  22.  "  The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  as  a  public 
person,  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his  posterity  ;  all  mankind 
descending  from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him  and 
fell  with  him  in  that  first  transgression."  Short  Cat.  12  and  16, 
to  the  same  effect.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Barnes  says,  "  the  Bible 
does  not  teach  that  they  [his  posterity]  acted  in  him,  or  by  hini, 


65 

or  that  he  acted  for  them."  And  he  sneeringly  asks,  (p.  117,) 
"  What  idea  id  conveyed  to  men  of  common  understanding  by  the 
expression  "  they  sinned  in  him  ]"  Thus  the  very  words  of  the 
Confession,  as  well  as  its  doctrine,  are  held  up  to  ridicule.  Con- 
tradiction cannot  he  more  palpable. 

Here  you  will  allow  me  to  make  a  remark  for  application  on  the 
other  points  as  well  as  this,  viz.  Mr.  Barnes  does  not  lay  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Confession  down  alongside  of  his  own.  Why  does 
he  not  quote  the  words  in  full,  which  he  is  alleged  to  contradict  f 
Surely  if  he  were  conscious  of  a  perfect  agreement  with  the  stand- 
ards, he  would  compare  them  together — he  would  present  both 
at  one  view  to  his  readers,  that  they  might  see  the  exact  coinci- 
dence. But  no,  the  language  of  the  Confession  is  withheld  from 
the  public  eye.     Can  any  man  be  at  a  loss  tor  the  reason"? 

But  perhaps  the  standards,  in  teaching  the  doctrine  of  "  the  Co- 
venant of  Woiks,"  go  beyond  the  Bible  ;  and  if  so,  we  are  bound 
not  to  follow  them  ;  at  least  we  are  not  conscience-bound  to  fol- 
low them  :  for  the  word  of  God  is  the  only  infallible  rule,  and  He 
only  is  Lord  of  conscience.  Let  us  therefore  inquire  whether  the 
Bible  teaches  the  doctrine  "  of  God's  covenant  with  man."  Gen. 
ii.  16,  17.  "  And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of 
every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  mayest  freely  eat,  but  of  the  tree 
of  the  knowledo-e  of  oood  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it :  for  in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die.' 

On  this  remark.  Man  was  bound  to  obey  his  Creator  in  all 
things,  prior  to,  and  independent  on  any  covenant  made  with  him : 
just  as  Eleazer,  in  the  case  supposed  above,  was  bound  to  obey 
Abraham,  and  my  son  to  obey  his  parent.  The  covenant  does  not 
create  moral  obligation :  the  obligation  is  mere  law :  and'  hence 
the  Confession  says,  "  God  gave  to  Adam  a  law,  as  a  covenant^ 
That  moditication  of  the  law,  which  appends  the  promised  reward, 
and  secures  the  consent  of  Adam,  is  what  constitutes  it  a  cove- 
nant. Our  inquiry  is,  not  whether  the  term  covenant  is  used 
here ;  that  we  are  to  lose  sight  of  the  subject  before  us  ;  but,  is 
the  thing  itself  here?  Have  we  the  moral  substance  J  Are  the 
essential  requisites  of  a  covenant  transaction  here !  To  this  I 
affirm:  Mr.  Barnes  denies.  Now  the  proof  of  the  positive  rests 
on  the  affirmant:  and  let  us  to  it.  1st.  Requisite,  "intelligent 
agents,"  and  here  they  are,  God  and  Adam.  There  is  no  room 
for  disputation  on  this  point.  2d.  "The  exercise  of  volition  in 
the  parties."  Now  that  God  exercised  volition  and  expressed 
his  will  to  Adam  is  undeniable — He  commanded  him.  And  that 
Adam  acquiesced  in  the  divine  proposition  is  evident  («)  from  the 
silence  of  Scripture,  as  to  any  objections.  You  will  say  'this  is 
negative  proof:'  so  it  is,  but  negative  proof  may  contain  positive 
evidence.  If  Adam  had  not  consented,  his  withholding  consent 
would  have  been  plead  by  him  as  a  reason  why  the  penalty  should 
not  be  pronounced  and  executed.  He  was  certainly  sufficiently 
disposed  to  excuse  himself,  and  if  he  could  have  laid  hold  of  that 

6* 


66 

plea — if  he  could  have  said  in  trulli,  '  I  never  consented  to  the 
proposition  about  this  tree  of  knowledge,'  it  would  certainly  Jiave 
been  a  better  apology  than  to  say,  "  the  woman  whom  thou 
gavest  to  be  with  me,  she  gave  me,"  &c.  (6)  Adam  could  not  as 
a  holy  creature  refuse  or  withhold  Iiis  consent  of  will,  to  a  propo- 
sition so  reasonable.  His  refusal  would  have  been  sin,  and  he 
would  have  been  a  fallen  creature.  To  refuse  his  consent  and 
to  remain  a  holy  creature  are  irreconcileable  impossibilities.  But 
now  Adam,  ajler  this  proposition  was  made  to  him,  continued  a 
holy  creature.  For  he  was  such  when  he  gave  names  to  the 
other  creatures,  and  when  his  rib  was  taken  out  to  form  his  wife. 
And  therefore,  it  is  evident,  he  did  consent  at  the  time — he  impli- 
citly acquiesed  in  tiie  terms  proposed,  (c)  He  could  not  but 
acquiesce,  because  the  terms  were  most  reasonable,  and  all  for  his 
benefit :  and  he  was  under  the  law  of  his  being  which  led  to  seek 
his  own  blessedness,  and  he  was  in  possession  oi' j)erfect  reasoning 
powers ;  and  no  temptation  had  as  yet  been  presented  to  pervert 
them,  (f?)  Eve  knew  of  tiie  proposition  or  command  of  God,  and 
assented  to  it.  (iii.  2,  3.)  t^he  replies  to  the  serpent,  "God  hath 
said,  '  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  it,"  &c.  Now  this  knowledge  she  de- 
rived from  her  husband,  tor  the  proposition  was  made  to  him 
before  she  was  created.  The  evidence  of  her  assent  is  explicit 
and  undeniable,  and  to  my  mind,  is  perfectly  conclusive,  that 
Adam  also  willingly  and  cheerfully  acquiesced  in  it.  3d.  "  A  pro- 
position made  by  the  one  to  the  other,  of  something  to  be  done." 
Such  proposition  was  made  by  God  to  Adam.  Controversy  about 
this,  there  cannot  be.  The  thing  proposed  to  Adam  was,  obe- 
dience in  the  matter  of  the  fruit  forbidden.  Abstinence  from  the 
fruit.  4th.  "  A  condition  of  reward  offered  in  the  proposition, 
when  the  other  party  shall  have  fulfilled  his  condition."  Now  I 
aver  that  such  condition  is  set  forth  in  the  words  before  us.  Not 
indeed  explicitly,  but  implicitly,  that  is,  by  plain  and  unavoidable 
implication.  The  threatening  of  death  upon  disobedience,  im- 
plied and  contained  a  promise  of  life  to  obedience.  "  In  the  day 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  The  simple  reading  of 
this  language  convinces  every  rational  mind,  that  life  was  set  be- 
fore Adam  as  well  as  death :  and  on  this  principle  Paul  reasons — 
Gal.  iii.  11,  12.  "But  that  no  man  is  justified  by  the  law  in  the 
sight  of  God,  it  is  evident,  for  the  just  shall  live  by  faith  :  And  the 
law  is  not  of  faith;  but  the  man  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  [by] 
them."  Doing  the  things  required  in  the  law,  secures  life  :  and 
V.  21.  "If  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could  have  given 
life."  The  law  given  to  Adam,  contained  a  pron)ise  of  life  to 
obedience.  This  is  universally  admitted,  and  I  w'aste  time  in  the 
proof.  5th.  "A  condition  of  penalty  threatened."  And  here  the 
text  is  explicit — "thou  shall  surely  die." 

Thus  every  item  essential  to  a  covenant  exists  in  the  ease  :  and 
I  challenge  denial  in  reference  to  any  one  of  them.  But  let  us 
see  what  notices  of  this  transaction  occur  in  other  Scriptures. 


G7 

Job,  xxxi.  33.  says  "if  I  covered  my  transgressions  as  Adam, 
by  iiiding  my  iniquity  in  my  bosom."  This  passage  is  cited, 
simply  for  the  translation  of  the  Hebrew  words, ^A-e  Adam;  it 
shows  that  those  terms  mean  as  Adam.  Now  compare  this  with 
Hosea  vii.  7.  "  But  they  he  Jldam,,  as  Adam^  transgressed  the 
covenant."  And  in  the  82d  Psalm,  "  Ye  shall  die  like  man, 
[as  Adam]  and  fall  like  [as]  one  of  the  people."  The  Lord,  by 
Hosea,  complains  against  Judah  and  Ephraim,  that  they  have 
transgressed  the  covenant.  What  covenant?  Undoubtedly 
that  which  God  made  with  their  fathers.  Deut.  v.  3.  *' The 
Lord  made  not  this  covenant  with  our  fathers  but  with  us,  even 
us,  who  are  all  of  us  here  alive  this  day."  This  Sinai  cove- 
nant, is  plainly  referred  to  by  the  prophet.  Judah  and  Ephraim 
transgressed  it:  as  Adam  transgressed  the  covenent  made  with 
him.  Here  the  term  covenant  is  applied  to  the  transaction  with 
Adam:  and  there  is  no  evasion.  For  if  it  be  alleged,  that  »^</am 
here  is  used  in  a  generic  sense,  for  the  race  in  general,— r- 
"they,  like  men  commonly  do,  transgressed  the  covenant"— 
it  returns  upon  us,  what  covenant  do  men  commonly  transgress  T 
Adam  is  a  general  term  for  the  race — the  whole  race.  Now  what 
covenant  had  God  given  to  the  whole  race  1  It  cannot  be  pre- 
tended, it  is  the  covenant  with  Noah,  and  this  is  the  only  cove- 
nant comprehending  the  race — the  whole  race,  except  only  the 
covenant  with  Adam.  If  therefore,  ^(iaw  means  man  in  gene- 
ral— the  race;  then  it  is  demonstrably  evident,  that  with  Me 
race  God  had  made  a  covenant.  1  ask  when,  and  where,  and 
how  1  And  to  these  there  can  be  no  answer  full  and  fair,  but  by 
admitting  the  doctrine  "  Of  God's  covenant  with  man,"  as 
laid  down  in  our  Confession. 

In  1  Cor.  XV.  22,  "  For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive,"  there  is  a  parallel  drawn  between  Adam 
and  Christ ;  showing  that  all  die  in  Adam.  If,  therefore,  the 
headship  of  Adam  is  denied,  it  is  incumbent  on  those  who  deny  to 
show  in  what  other  sense  all  could  die  in  him,  than  by  virtue  of 
the  moral  relation  to  him.  The  same  is  evident  from  Rom.  v.  12, 
19,  "  By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin" — 
"  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners."  If  the 
consequences  of  the  legal  relation  are  realised,  and  God's  govern- 
ment be  just,  the  relation  itself  must  have  existed.  The  fact  is 
undeniably  true,  that  death,  preceded,  of  course,  by  condemna- 
tion and  jMsi  exposure  to  death,  passed  and  still  passes  through 
upon  all  mankind,  and  many  of  them,  viz.  all  infants,  had  not  per- 
sonally sinned ;  therefore  they  sinned  in  their  first  father  Adam, 
the  moral  head  of  the  race. 

Allow  me  here  to  add  the  testimony  of  the  late  learned  and  la- 
mented Dr.  Wilson.  He  is  very  explicit  in  maintaining  the  re- 
presentative character  of  Adam,  and  his  opinions  ought  to  hav- 
great  weight  here.  In  Ridgley,  vol.  II.  pp.  77,  78,  he  has  a  note 
on  tills  passage,  viz.  "  We  shall  proceed  to  inquire  how  the  pro- 


68 

Viclenco  of  God  had  a  more  immediate  reference  to  the  spiritual 
or  eternal  Ijappiness  of  man,  in  that  he  entered  into  a  covevant  of 
life  with  him."  In  the  note  approbatory  and  cxplanative,  Dr. 
Wilson  eays,  "  The  first  intelligent  creatures  were  purely  spiri- 
tual, and  each  stood  or  fell  for  himself^  He  united  in  man  the 
spiritual  and  the  corporeal  natures;  he  formed  his  soul  innocent 
and  holy,  and  made  ample  provisions  for  the  comfort  of  his  body ; 
and  as  it  would  have  been  inconvenient  to  have  brought  all  of  the 
human  family,  which  v^ere  to  be  in  every  generation,  upon  the 
earth  at  one  time,  and  still  more  so,  that,  every  one  standing  or 
falling  for  himself,  the  earth  should  be  the  common  habitation  of 
beings  perfectly  holy,  happy,  and  immortal,  and  also  of  cursed, 
perishing  beings,  he  constituted  the  first  man  a  representative  of 
his  race.  That  he  represented  the  race  appears  from  this,  that 
the  command  was  given  to  him  before  his  wife  was  formed,  and 
also  because  it  does  not  appear  that  her  eyes  were  opened  to  see 
her  guilt  and  miserable  condition,  until  he  had  eaten  of  the 
fruit,  "  then  the  eyes  of  them  both  were  opened."  The  same  is 
reaffirmed  in  the  note  on  page  103.  "The  command  had  been 
given  to  Adam  ;  he  was  the  representative  of  Eve  and  his  poste- 
rity." Let  no  man  slander  the  illustrious  dead,  by  saying  that 
Doctor  J.  P.  Wilson  denied  the  covenant  of  works  and  Adan/s  re- 
presentative character. 

I  proceed  now  to  remark  on  the  Defence  of  Mr.  Barnes. 

1.  He  mistakes  or  misstates  the  case  before  the  court.  "  My 
statement  in  my  '  Notes'  is  definite,  and  designed  to  be  so.  It  is 
simply  that  the  terms  covenant,  federal  headship,  and  representa- 
tive, are  not  applied  to  the  transaction  in  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration in  my  ISotes,  nor  in  the  Bible.  And  the  simple  inquiry 
is,  whether  this  is  so  or  is  not — and  on  this  the  Presbytery  is  to 
find  a  verdict."  So,  then,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  a  mere  question  of 
terms  !  And  this  solemn  charge  of  dangerous  error  amounts  only 
to  this,  Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  the  terms  representative  And  fede- 
ral headship  are  found  in  the  Bible!  Strange !  indeed  !  And 
pray  who  affirmed  that  these  words  are  in  the  Bible?  Is  it  indeed 
so  1  Is  this  the  precise  point  of  this  5th  charge,  that  Mr.  Barnes 
denies  a  position,  which  every  person  who  has  ever  read  the 
Scriptures  denies  ?  Have  I  charged  him  with  such  a  wonderful 
heresy  ?  Or  have  I  charged  him  with  denying  the  doctrine  of  the 
covenant  of  works,  the  federal  or  covenant  headship  and  represen- 
tative character  of  Adam  J  This  is  certamly  what  I  intended, 
and  if  I  have  made  such  a  mistake  as  to  charge  as  an  error  the 
rejection  of  these  terms,  then  truly  you  will  make  short  work  of 
this  charge,  and  acquit  the  accused.  But  let  us  take  heed.  This 
diversion  must  not  lead  us  away  from  the  point  before  us.  The 
controversy  is  not  about  terms.  The  word  terms  is  not  used  in 
the  charge.  It  is  a  question  of  tilings — a  question  of  doctrine  ; 
and  yet  the  substance  of  this  "  Defence"  has  reference  only  to  the 
meaning  of  a  few  words,  and  to  the  question  whether  they  are 


69 

found  in  the  Bible.  Now,  no  man  can  read  the  passages  above 
cited  from  the  ■"  Notes,"  without  perceiving,  that  whilst  he  does 
reject  the  terms  in  question  as  unscriptural,  he  also  rejects  the 
thi7igs  meant  by  them — the  doctrine.  He  states  the  doctrine  ot 
our  Confession,  and  rejects  it — calls  it  "  a  mere  philosophical 
theory."  What  is  a  philosophical  theory  1  The  terms  covenant^ 
representative,  federal  head  ?  Are  the  mere  words  a  theory,  or 
does  he  mean  the  sentiments,  the  doctrines,  the  thin-gs  taught  ? 
How  futile  !  Oh,  no  ;  he  denies  the  legal -connexion — the  moral 
relation.  "  The  Bible  does  not  teach,  says  he.  Does  not  teach 
what  1  That  the  terms  are  used  !  Nay,  it  *'  does  not  teach  that 
they  acted  in  him,  or  by  him,  or  that  he  acted /or  them." 

2.  Mr,  Barnes  objects  to  the  term  covenant — rather  he  denies 
the  existence  of  the  thing,  because  the  transaction  meant  by  the 
term  implies  "  equality  between  the  parties."  I  have  demon- 
strated that  absolute  equality  is^ot  requisite.  My  son  or  slave 
and  I  may  make  a  covevant;  yet,  absolutely,  we  are  not  on  a 
scale  of  equality.  Dr.  Ely  and  his  slave  Ambrose  have  entered 
into  a  covenant  for  the  benefit  of  the  latter,  and  the  glory  of  the 
former — are  they  absolutely  equal  1  So  far  from  equality  being 
requisite  to  great  and  important  '•  leagues,  compacts,  agreements,''* 
it  is  most  commonly  absent.  Treaties  between  nations  are  sub» 
stantially  and  often  formally  covenants,  and  yet  it  is  notorious, 
that  they  are  very  frequently  entered  into  when  one  of  the  parties 
is  beaten  and  conquered.  But  the  obvious  scriptural  fact  is,  that 
God  has  often  covenanted  with  his  people,  and  Gesenius  ought 
not  to  have  been  quoted  as  saying,  that  the  Hebrew  word  "means 
properly,  a  compact,  league,  agreement,  between  man  and  man." 
His  first  observation  has  reference  to  the  cutting  of  victims  into 
two  parts,  and  passing  between  them,  of  which  the  only  examples 
in  the  Bible  are  that  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  the 
case  referred  to  in  Jeremiah,  And  he  says,  "  Spec,  et  creberrime 
de  fcEdere  pactoque  Deum  inter  et  Abrahamum  juncto."  Gen,  xv. 
17.)  "  The  special  and  most  frequent  application  is  to  the  covenant 
&nd  compact  entered  into  between  God  and  Abraham."  Now 
every  reader  of  the  Bible  knows  that  Gesenius  is  right.  The 
term  is  in  fact  applied  in  but  comparatively  few  instances  in  the 
Bible  to  compacts  between  man  and  man.  It  is  used  more  than 
twenty  times  in  reference  to  the  agreement  between  God  and 
man,  before  it  is  applied  once  to  agreements  between  man  and 
man.  Now  it  is  from  the  general  and  original  application  of  a 
term  we  learn  its  meaning.  Yet  I  will  concede  that  there  is  a 
relative  equality — there  is  a  letting  down  of  the  high  and  mighty 
— there  is  condescension  on  the  part  of  the  great,  when  he  con-? 
tracts  a  covenant  with  his  inferior.  Dr.  Ely  condescended  in  eo? 
venanting  with  Ambrose.  Joshua  condescended  when  he  made 
a  league  (a  covenant,)  with  the  beggarly  Gibeonites.  On  the 
same  principle,  but  infinitely  greater- is  the  condescension  of  our 
God,  in  proposing  terms  to  Adam  ;  threatening  death,  and  promis* 


70 

ing  life  as  the  reward  of  that  obedience  to  which  Adam  was 
bound,  independently  of  the  promise  or  the  threatening.  There 
can,  however,  be  no  such  "equality  or  liberty  to  reject  the  terms," 
as  Mr.  Barnes  speaks  of,  in  any  case  where  God  i)roposes  a  cove- 
nant, as  it  is  undeniable  he  often  did.  The  brother's  argument 
against  a  covenant  of  God  with  Adam,  applies  equally  against  his 
covenant  with  Noah,  Abraham,  and  Israel. 

3.  Mr.  Barnes'  6th  objection  is,  because  the  phrase  "  federal  or 
covenant  head,"  is  not  .to  be  found  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  or 
in  the  Catechisms."  Is  the  word  constitution,  which  he  uses 
three  lines  below,  found  in  the  Confession  ]  The  argument  here 
is,  that  because  the  term  is  not  in  the  Confession,  therefore,  to 
omit  its  use  is  not  heresy.  But  then  its  force  lies  in  the  gratui- 
tous assumption,  which  I  have  shown  to  be  false,  viz.  that  the  dis- 
pute is  about  the  term,  not  the  thing — the  mere  phrase,  not  the 
doctrine.  But,  in  reality,  the  reasoning  from  the  fact,  that  cer- 
tain words  are  not  in  the  standards,  or  in  the  Bible,  ought  to  infer 
that  the  doctrine  is  not  there ;  and  if  a  certain  term  is  not  in  the 
Bible,  the  idea  expressed  by  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  held.  Now 
the  word  trinity  is  not  in  the  Bible,  is  it  therefore  no  error  to 
deny  the  doctrine.  The  phrase  "  social  organization,"  a  favourite 
with  Mr.  Barnes,  is  not  in  the  Bible.  The  words  society,  happi- 
ness, result,  explained,  system,  numberless,  iudependent,  commu- 
nities, sympathy,  aid,  grouped,  constituted,  clans,  conduct,  whelm, 
union,  race,  (species,)  improved,  advancement,  endeavour — all 
these,  twenty-two  in  number,  are  found  in  a  single  column  (page 
129,)  of  Mr.  Barnes'  book,  yet  none  of  them  are  in  the  Bible.  I 
have  taken  the  trouble  to  set  them  forth,  simply  to  exhibit  practi- 
cally the  futility  of  this  argument,  against  any  given  doctrine,  be- 
cause the  terms  by  which  it  may  be  most  conveniently  expressed 
are  not  in  the  sacred  volume.  To  say,  then,  that  "  in  expressing 
his  views  of  this  transaction,  he  has  confined  himself  as  strictly  as 
possible  to  the  language  of  Scripture,"  is  altogether  inaccurate ; 
the  word  "  transaction"  is  not  in  the  Scriptures,  and  every  reader 
must  see,  that  it  is  much  more  vague  than  the  Scripture  term 
covenant,  and  therefore  cannot  express  the  idea  so  accurately. 

4.  Mr.  Barnes  supposes  that  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  with 
Adam  is  made  the  basis  of  error  in  those  who  hold  it.  And  speci'- 
fies  the  doctrine  of  personal  identity  with  Adam  as  the  error ; 
and  alleges  that  his  view  avoids  it.  Now  (a)  the  covenant  of 
works  is  taught  in  our  standards,  and  the  doctrine  of  personal 
identity  is  not  taught  there  ;  nor  is  it  held  by  any  who  honestly 
and  truly  hold  to  the  Confession.  I  shall  show,  in  due  time,  that 
Mr.  B.  utterly  mistakes  when  he  says  Edwards  holds  it.  (6)  Per- 
sonal identity  with  Adam  is  perfectly  irreconciloable  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works.  For  if  his  posterity  were  per- 
sonally one  with  Adam,  they  and  he  are  not  millions  of  persons, 
all  represented  by  one  individual  of  those  millions;  they  are  one 
iodividual,  and  incapable  of  representation ;  and  this  is  the  perfeq- 


71 

tion  of  absurdity.  (e)The  doctrine  of  physical  unity ;  or  animal 
identity — oneness  with  Adam  as  the  parent  of  our  bodies,  is  held 
forth  as  the  only  connexion  with  him.  Now  this  physical  identity 
may,  and  I  think  must,  lead  to  dangerous  error.  How  can  bro- 
ther Barnes  avoid  the  odious  doctrine  of  physical  depravity  ! 

5.  "  The  consent  of  those  who  are  represented,"  he  considers 
as  included  in  the  idea  of  representation.     This  is  obviously  true, 
and  it  is  manifestly  not  true.     That  is,  sometimes  the  consent  of 
the  represented  is  given  personally ;  but  in  the  vast  majority/,  ge- 
nerally, it  is  not  given  by  them  personally.     And  as  Webster  is 
brought  into  this  theological  discussion,  let  us  hear  him  on  both 
sides.     "  Representation — 7.  The  business  of  acting  as  a  substi- 
tute for  another."     And  "  Substitute,"  he  defines,  "  One  person 
put  in  the  place  of  another  to  answer  the  same  purpose."     Repre- 
sentation,  then,  is  one  person  acting   "for  another" — "in  the 
place  of  another" — "  put  in  the  place,"  that  he  might  act,  and  go 
acting  for  another..    There  is  not  a  word  said  in  his  entire  defini- 
tions about  consent  of  the  represented ;  and  for  the  obvious  reason, 
that  the  creation  or  production  of  the  relation  is  one  thing,  and 
the  relation  itself  is  another.  How  Adam  became  a  representative 
is  one  thing.     His  action  '^for  his  posterity,'"  is  another  thing. 
The  fact  of  his  acting  for  them  is  affirmed  in  our  standards  and 
the  Bible;  it  is  denied  l)y  this  brother  ;  the  manner  of  his  appoint- 
ment is  also  set  forth ;  it  is  by  God's  constituting  or  establishing 
with  him  the  covenant  of  works.     This  also  is  denied.    To  repre- 
sent, says  Webster,  is  "  to  supply  the  place  of;  to  act  as  a  substi- 
tute for  another."     But  now  if  the  question  be,  how  is  one  man 
to  act  for  another]  the  answer  must  be — in  various  ways.     1.  A 
commercial  agent,  i.  e.  a  man  to  act  for  another  in  commercial 
business,  is  appointed  with  his  consent ;  and  this  consent  must  be 
evinced,  in  order  to  the  business  transactions  being  binding.  This 
doctrine  is  well  laid  down  and  illustrated  in  the  citations  from 
Kent's  Commentaries.     2.  But  similar  agency  exists  in  various 
cases  where  no  account  is  given — yea,  where  the  consent  is  with- 
held.    Guardians  act  for  their  wards;  trustees  under  the  drunk- 
ard's law  act  for  the  man  and  his  family  ;  legislators  act  for  the 
whole  mass  of  population,  whose  consent  is  not  given — as  chil- 
dree,  women,  persons  who  never  vote,  and  all  minorities.     Indi- 
vidual, personal  consent  is  not  asked.  In  everj-  conceivable  sense, 
(for  the  purposes  of  the  appointment,)  the  guardian  represents — 
he  acts  for  his  ward.     And  in  the  national  compact,  covenant, 
agreement,  provision  is  made  whereby  a  few  represent  and  act 
for  the  whole,  without  their  consent ;  minors  are  sometimes  asked 
who  shall  represent  them;  but  this  is  not  necessary;  their  con- 
sent is  not  given.     But  Mr.  Barnes  says,  it  is  given  in  forming 
the  constitution  by  those  who  were  then  capable  of  giving  con- 
sent ;  or  it  is  given  by  their  continuing  under  it.  But  can  a  minor 
withhold  that  consent"?     Is  he  not  bound  independently  on  iti 
Just  so  in  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  Israel ;  it  bound  all 


72 

their  posterity,  and  their  withliolding  consent  was  rebellion  against 
God,  and  a  broach  of  his  covenant.  So  Adam  acted  for  his  pos- 
terity— their  consent  was  not  asked.  Minors  and  minorities  have 
men  to  act  for  tliem  without  their  consent.  Is  this  hard  ?  Is  it 
unjust  J  No  more  unjust  was  it  in  God  to  constitute  Adam  a  head 
to  act  for  his  people. 

6.  He  says,  in  the  Defence,  "  That  posterity  are  subjected,  in 
consequence  of  this  act  of  Adam,  to  the  same  train  of  ills  as  if 
they  had  themselves  been  personally  the  transgressors — that  is, 
that  his  posterity  are  "  indubitably  affected."  And  the  most 
like  admiitincr  the  legal  consequence  of  the  transgression  upon 
his  posterity,  is  on  page  124.  "  Unto  condemnation.  Producing 
condemnation  ;  or  involving  in  condemnation."  Now  the  su- 
perficial reader  would  here  suppose,  that  he  teaches  guilt — lizt- 
bility  to  penal  evil  as  a  necessary  effect  of  Adam's  sin,  upon  his 
posterity.  But  when  you  look  forward  you  find,  that  this 
penal  evil  comes  only  after  voluntary  action.  There  is  a  ten- 
dency to  sin  in  our  nature  ;  and  when  this  tendency  is  developed, 
for  that  developement  he  is  punishable.  And  he  proceeds  to 
explain  the  whole  on  the  principle  by  which  a  drunkard  brings 
ruin  upon  his  family  :  and  such  men  may  bring  pain  and  wo,  but 
not  as  a  penal  evil.  But  I  must  waive  this  for  the  present  as  it 
runs  into 

CHARGE  VI. 

Viz.  Mr.  Barnes  denies  "That  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  im- 
puted to  his  posterity." 

Prool  1.  p.'lO.  »*  A  melancholy  instance  of  this  [substituting 
theory  for  fact]  we  have  in  the  account  which  the  Apostle 
gives  (ch.  V.)  about  the  effect  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  The  simple 
fact  is  staled,  that  that  sin  was  followed  by  the  sin  and  ruin  of 
all  his  posterity.  Yet  he  offers  no  explanation  of  the/crc/.  He 
leaves  it  as  indubitable;  and  as  not  demanding  an  explanation 
in  his  argument,  perhaps  as  not  admitting  it.  This  is  the  whole 
of  his  doctrine  on  that  subject.  Yet  men  have  not  been  sati-iified 
wiih  that.  They  have  sought  for  a  theory  to  account  for  it. 
And  many  suppose  that  they  have  found  it  in  the  doctrine  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over  by  an  arbilary  arrange- 
ment to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and  that  they  are  held  to  be 
responsible  for  a  deed  comrnitted  thousands  of  years  before 
they  were  born.  This  is  the  theory^  and  men  insensibly  forget 
that  it  is  mere  theory.''^ 

Proof  2.  *'(3.)  It  comports  with  the  Apostle's  agreement  to 
state  a  cause  why  all  died,  and  not  to  state  that  all  sinned  in 
Adam.  It  would  require  an  additional  statement  to  see  hotv  that 
could  be  a  cause.  (4.)  The  expression  in  whom  all  have  sin- 
ned conveys  no  intelligible  idea.  As  men  had  not  an  existence 
then  in  any  sense,  they  could  not  then  sin.  What  idea  is  con- 
veyed   to  men    of  common    untlerstanding   by  the   expression 


73 

"  they  sinned  in  himl"     The  meaning  of  the  expression,  there- 
fore, clearly,  is,  because  all  have  sinned  all  die." 

"  I  understand  it,  therefore,  as  referring  to  ihe  fact  that  men 
sin  in  I  heir  own  persons,  sin  themselves — as  indeed,  how  can  they 
sin  in  any  other  way  1     and  that  therefore  they  die." 

Proof  3.  p.  119.  *'The  difference  contemplated,  Rom.  v.  14, 
is  not  that  Adam  was  an  ac/ua/ sinner,  and  that  thei/  had  sinned 
only  by  imputation.  For  (1.)  The  expression  to  sin  by  imputa- 
tion, is  unintelligible  and  conveys  no  idea.  (2)  The  apostle 
makes  no  such  distinction  and  conveys  no  such  idea.  (3)  His 
very  object  is  different.  It  is  to  show  that  they  were  actual  sin- 
ners ;  ttiat  they  transgressed  law  ;  and  the  proof  of  this  is  that 
they  died.  (4)  It  is  utterly  absurd  to  suppose  that  men  from 
the  time  of  Adam  to  Moses  were  sinners  on/i/  by  imputation. 

Proof  4.  p.  119.  ♦'  Death  reigned  ;  and  this  proves  that  they 
were  sinners.  If  rt  should  he  said  that  the  death  of  jw/on/s  would 
prove  that  they  weie  sinners  also,  I  answer, — (a)  That  this  was 
an  inference  which  the  apostle  does  not  draw,  and  for  which  he 
is  not  responsible.  It  is  not  affirmed  by  him.  (b)  If  it  did  re- 
fer to  infants,  what  would  it  prove  1  Not  that  the  sin  of  Adam 
was  imputed,  but  that  they  were  personally  guilty  and  transgres- 
sors. For  this  is  the  only  point  to  which  the  argument  tends. 
The  apostle  says  not  one  word  about  imputation.  He  does  not 
even  refer  to  infants  by  name,  nor  does  he  here  introduce  at  all 
the  doctrine  of  imputation.  All  this  is  mere  philosophy  intro- 
duced to  explain  difficulties  ;  but  whether  the  theory  explains  or 
embarrasses  the  subject,  it  is  not  needful  here  to  inquire.  (3) 
The  very  expression  here  is  against  the  supposition  that  infants 
are  intended,  and  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  them.  The 
doctrine  of  imputation  has  been,  that  infants  were  personally 
guilty  of  Adam's  sin  ;  that  they  '*  sinned  in  him  ;"  that  there  was 
z  pei-sonal  identity  consututed  between  them  and  Adam,  see  (Ed- 
wards on  original  sin  ;)  and  that  therefore  his  sin  was  theirs  as 
really  and  truly  as  if  committed  by  themselves.  Yet  here  the 
apostle  says  that  those  of  whom  he  was  speaking  had  not  sinned 
"■  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgression."  But  if  the  doc- 
trine of  imputation  be  true,  it  is  certain  that  they  had  not  only 
had  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  his  transgression,  but  had 
sinned  the  very  identical  sin.  It  was  precisely //A;e  him;  it  was 
the  very  thing  itself;  and  they  were  answerable  for  that  very 
sin  as  their  own.  This  doctrine,  therefore,  cannot  be  intended 
here." 

Proofs,  p.  121.  ♦' Nor  have  we  a  right  to  assume  that  this 
[ver.  15,]  teaches  the  doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of 
Adam  to  his  posterity.  For  (1)  the  apostle  says  nothing  of  it. 
(2)  That  doctrine  is  nothing  but  an  eflfort  to  explain  the  manner 
of  an  event  which  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  think  it  proper  to 
attempt  to  explain.  (3)  That  doctrine  is  in  fact  no  explanation. 
It  is  introducing  an  additional  difficulty.     For  to  say  that  1  am 

7 


71 

guilty  of  the  sin  of  anolijer  in  which  1  had  no  agency,  is  no  tx- 
planution,  hut  is  involving  me  in  additional  difficulty  still  more 
perplexing,  to  ascertain  how  such  a  doctrine  can  possibly  he 
just." 

Proof  0.  p.  127.  *'  The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  express 
the  idea  of  imputing  that  to  one  ivliich  belongs  to  another.  It  here 
either  means,  that  this  was  h;/  a  constitution  of  divine  appointment 
that  they  in  fact  became  sinners,  or  simply  declares  they  were 
so  in  fact.  There  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  it  was  by 
imputation." 

Proof  7.  p.  128.  As  quoted  under  Charge  V. 

Mr.  Moderator,  we  now  approach  the  more  serious  and  solerhn 
parts  of  our  discussion.  And  as  we  advance  I  seem  to  hear  the 
solemn  sounds,  "Put  off  thy  shoes  from  off  thy  feet,  for  the 
place  whereon  thou  standesl  is  holy  ground."  Yes,  we  come  to 
the  holy  mount — the  sacred  seat  of  the  Most  High — the  strong 
holds  of  truth  divine. 

Our  discussions  heretofore  have  respected  principles,  import- 
ant indeed,  but,  with  the  exception  of  the  last,  only  relatively 
so  ;  we  have  passed  the  out-posts  and  the  horn-work  and  the 
crown-work,  and  now  approximate  the  citadel  of  truth.  Let  us 
enter  and  examine  the  interior,  and  see  whether  every  thing  is 
in  due  order  for  successful  defence — her  guns  all  well  mounted 
and  manned — her  magazine  fully  stored — her  rank  and  file  tho- 
roughly drilled — her  officers  all  at  their  posts.  And  where  do 
we  find  brother  Barnes  1  Where  but  at  his  proper  station,  as  a 
good  soldier  of  Jesus  Christ  should  be.  See  him  at  his  gun, 
with  every  thing  in  complete  order — his  thirty-two  well  rammed 
home — all  primed  and  ready — his  match  lighted  and  whirling 
round  his  head — But  hold!  my  brother,  your  gun  points  directly 
into  the  magazine  !  Discharge  her,  and  we  are  blown  up — our 
citadel  is  in  ruins  and  our  cause  lost  for  ever.  Yes,  Mr.  Mode- 
rator, the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  fundamental  in  the  Christian 
system.  Destroy  this  and  all  is  gone.  Deny  this  and  affirm 
what  else  you  please,  it  is  all  to  no  purpose.  Adam's  sin  is  im- 
puted, i.  e.  charged  in  law  to  his  posterity;  and  Christ's  righte- 
ousness is  imputed,  i.  e.  charged  in  law  to  his  posterity — his 
,  spiritual  seed.  Do  you  not  see  and  feel  this  to  be  the  very  es- 
sence of  the  gospel !  I  see,  or  think,  I  see  it.  I  feel,  or  trust,  I 
feel  it.  Yes,  nothing  is  more  plain  and  undeniable.  I  /<?c/sin 
upon  me — the  sin  of  my  life  and  the  sin  of  my  nature.  Adam's 
sin  imputed,  and  my  own  sin  imputed.  I  am  a  condemned 
wretch.  How  shall  I  escape?  Blessed  be  God  !  As  in  the  first 
Adam  I  became  or  was  made  a  sinner;  so  in  the  second  Adam  I 
became  or  am  made  righteous.  His  death  takes  away  my  sin, 
and  his  life  or  righteousness  secures  me  in  life.  This  is  "  my 
title  clear  to  mansions  in  the  skies."  Take  away  the  doctrine  of 
imputation  and  the  title  is  gone.  Rob  me  of  the  imputed  righte- 
ousness of  the  Son  of  God  and  I  have  no  title  to  heavenly  joy. 


75 

Deny  the  representative  character  of  Adam  and  the  imputation 
of  his  sin  to  his  posterity,  and  you  must  deny  the  representative 
character  of  Christ  and  the  imputation  of  his  righteousness  to  his 
posterity — the  Rock  is  removed  from  beneath  the  feet  of  my 
faith — the  foundation  of  my  hopes  for  eternity  is  taken  away. 
But  thanks  be  to  God,  his  love  will  never  direct  Omnipotence  to 
create  a  Samson  with  powers  to  tear  away  the  pillars  that  sus- 
tain the  throne  of  his  mercy.  His  covenant  is  sure.  It  is  esta- 
blished as  the  heavens,  and  confirmed  by  the  oath  of  Him  that 
cannot  lie — "  even  the  sure  mercies  of  David."  It  was  ad- 
visedly and  deliberately  I  said,  concerning  brother  Barnes'  denial 
of  tiiis  doctrine,  "  if  it  be  true,  then  I  cannot  read  my  title  clear 
to  mansions  in  the  skies ;"  for  there  is  no  title,  nothing  which 
gives  the  believing  sinner  a  right  to  an  inheritance  on  high. 
Now  to  make  it  clear  as  day  that  the  accused  does  deny  "  that 
the  first  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed  to  his  posterity,"  Remark 

Proof  1.  He  explicitly  and  in  terms  declares  it ;  his  language 
is,  "  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  imputed,  or  set  over  by  an  arbitary 
arrangement  to  beings  otherwise  innocent,  and  that  they  are  held 
to  be  responsible  for  a  deed  committed  by  a  man  thousands  of 
years  before  they  were  born — is  the  theory,  and  men  insensibly 
forget  that  it  is  mere  theory.''^  Now  the  term  theory  is  applied  to 
"  the  philosophical  explanation  of  phenomena,  either  physical  or 
moral,"  [Webster,]  and  when  the  application  is  correct,  the 
theory  is  true.  Thus  we  speak  of  the  theory  of  combustion — the 
theory  of  animal  heat — the  theory  of  light  and  vision — the  theory 
of  morals.  But  when  we  speak  of  a  mere  theory,  we  therein  deny 
the  truth  and  reject  the  principles  of  the  explanation — we  affirm 
that  the  relations  alleged  therein  do  not  exist,  and  the  allegations 
are  false.     Thus  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  explicitly  denied. 

Proof  2.  He  maintains  that  the  expression  "  in  whom  all  have 
sinned"  conveys  no  intelligible  idea.  Now  on  this  let  me 
remark :  (a)  it  is  the  most  literal  and  exact  translation  of  the 
Greek  £?w  rtavtsj  iqi.ia^'tov  (eph  ho  pantes  hemarton)  and  this  no 
man  will  deny — "in  (or  by)  whom  all  sinned  or  have  sinned."  {b) 
There  is  not  an  instance,  but  one,  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  in 
which  the  Greek  words  fcp  «,  are  or  cari  be  translated  "for  that" 
or  because.  If  there  is,  let  it  be  produced.  The  nearest  to  it  is 
Matt.  xxvi.  50.  "  Friend,  wherefore  art  thou  come  3"  But  here 
the  literal  rendering,  makes  the  sense  full  and  clear.  "  Friend, 
in  whom  ?  by  whom  ]  by  whose  authority  ]  in  whose  name,  art 
thou  come?"  Knapp,  however,  prefers  the  reading  £9  0,  the 
accusative  case,  which  of  course  removes  the  difficulty  as  to  the 
construction  of  the  diction  in  the  text.  In  Luke  v.  25.,  there  is 
an  ellipsis  of  the  antecedent,  precisely  as  in  this  place  under  con- 
sideration, (Rom.  V.  12.)  "He  took  up  that  Wicreon  he  lay" — that 
in  which  he  lay.  Here  it  is  impossible  to  translate  eph  ho  as  a 
causal  particle /or  that  or  because.  _Mark  ii.  4.  "  They  let  down 
the  bed  wherein  the  sick  of  the  palsy  lay," — wherein,  in  which  he 


70 

lay.  Here  again  it  is  impossible  to  render  the  eph  ho,  as  a  causal 
particle,  for  that,  or  because.  Phil.  iii.  12.  "  1  follow  after,  if 
that  1  may  appreliend  that  Jor  which  also  J  am  apprehended  of 
Christ."  ilere  eph  ho  is  translated /or  which  and  tlic  antecedent 
ie  supplied,  that.  In  Rom.  ix.  80,  I'auJ  applies  the  term  translated 
apprehend,  to  the  act  of  faith,  laying  hold  on  Christ's  righteous- 
ness— "  attained  to  righteousness."  And  in  1  Cor.  i.x.  24,  "  So 
run  that  ye  may  ohtain^^  the  prize.  So  here,  "  I  follow  after,  if 
that  I  may  apprehend  [hint'\  in  whom  I  am  apprehended  of 
Christ" — or  "I  may  apprehend  [the  thing"]  by  which  1  am  appre- 
hended." But  to  render  it  a  causal  particle,  Jor  that  or  because, 
destroys  the  sense.  One  other  instance  only  occurs.  2  Cor.  v.  4. 
**  We,  that  are  in  this  tabernacle,  do  groan,  being  burdened  :  not 
for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,"  &c.  Here  the  sense  of  the 
passage  is  not  destroyed  by  rendering  itybr  that  or  because.  But 
it  is  equally  or  more  explicit  by  the  literal  rendering ;  "  we 
groan,  being  burdened :  in  which  we  would  not  be  unclothed" — 
^'  by  which  [conduct]  we  do  not  wish  to  be  unclothed."  (c)  The 
same  preposition,  epi,  is  so  to  be  understood  in  other  connections. 
2  Cor.  vii.  7.  "  He  was  comforted  in  you.**  Matlh.  xiv.  8.  "  Give 
me  here  John  the  Baptist's  head  in  a  charger."  Acts  xiv.  3. 
"Speaking  boldly  in  the  Lord."  To  this  reading,  the  only 
serious  objection  I  have  heard,  is  the  distance  of  the  antecedent; 
this,  however,  is  more  specious  than  substantial :  as  will  be  seen 
upon  considering  the  position  I  next  lay  dovjrn,  viz.  That  the 
word  8cii'k9iv  (dielthei))  always  requires  a  case  to  be  governed 
by  it,  expressed  or  implied.  This  position  can  be  established  by 
reference  to  all  the  instances  wherein  the  word  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament.  Space,  however,  will  not  permit  the  insertion 
of  the  whole.  I  have  examined  them  all,  and  feel  confident  of 
the  correctness  of  the  affirn)ation.  Allow  me  to  designate  a  few 
instances.  Matth.  xii.  43.  "  He  walketh  through  dry  places." 
Here  the  governed  case  is  expressed,  and  the  preposition,  in- 
cluded in  the  verb,  is  repeated,  dia,  through.  The  same  oceurs 
xix.  24.  '^  To  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle."  Mark  iv.  35.  "  Let 
us  pass  over  unto  the  other  side" — Let  us  pass  through  [the  sea] 
unto,  &,c.  Here  the  governed  case  is  understood.  Luke  ii.  15. 
the  same-r-verse  35,  "  A  sword  shall  pierce  through  thy  own  soul 
also."  Here  the  case  is  expressed  and  the  preposition  is  not 
repeated.  So  xix.  1.  '^  Passed  through  Jericho.'" — And  many 
other  instances  might  be  cited,  all  showing  that  where  it  is  not 
expressed,  a  case  must  be  supplied  before  it  is  possible  to  apply 
the  ordinary  rules  of  grammatical  construction  and  make  the  sen- 
tence full.  Seeing,  therefore,  that  the  verb,  passed  through, 
requires  a  case,  the  difficulty  is  obviated,  for  that  case  is  the  ante- 
cedent to  the  pronoun  whom.  The  sentence  therefore  precisely 
translated,  stands  thus.  ''  Wherefore,  as  through  one  man  sin 
passed  in  upon  the  world,  and  through  the  sin,  death;  and  so 
(or  even  so)  upon  all  men,  de.ath  passed  through  [hijn]  in  whom 


77 

all  have  sinned."  Owen,  in  his  Treatise  on  Justification, 
Vol.  XI.  eh.  xviii.  p.  400.,  says  of  this  nnsf?age,  The  Apostle 
"  declares,  how  all  men  universally  became  liable  to  this  punish- 
ment, or  guilty  of  death,  *>  ^  7iavtt<;  t^fxa^tov  '  in  quo  omnes 
peccaverunt;'  'in  whom  all  have  sinned.'  For  it  relates  unto 
the  one  man  that  sinned,  in  whom  all  sinned ;  which  is  evident 
from  the  effect  thereof,  in  as  much  as  in  him  all  died ;"  1  Cor. 
XV.  32.  Or  as  it  is  here,  on  his  sin  "  death  passed  upon  all  men." 
And  this  is  the  evident  sense  of  the  words,  e^i  being  put  for  sv 
which  is  not  unusual  in  the  Scripture.  See  Matth.  xv.  5.  Rom. 
iv.  18.  V.  2.  Phil.  i.  3.  Heb.  ix.  17.  And  it  is  so  often  used  by 
the  br.it  u  riters  in  the  Greek  tongue.  So  Hesiod,  '  Metron  de 
opi  pasm  ariston,'  modus  in  omnibus  rebus  optimus.  So  ff  vi^iv 
i' a  If  IV  '  in  verbis  situm  est.' — And  this  reading  of  the  words  is 
contended  for  by  Austin  against  the  Pelagians,  rejecting  their 

*  eo  quod,'  or  '  propterea'  [for  that  or  because.]  But  I  shall  not 
contend  about  the  reading  of  the  words." 

Mr.  Barnes  also  affirms  here,  that  men  can  sin  no  other  way 
than  in  their  own  persons,  thereby  denying  that  "  vi^e  sinned  in 
him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression."  His  language 
is  plain — "  men  sin  in  their  own  persons,  sin  themselves — as  in- 
deed, how  can  they  sin  any  other  way  ]" 

•  Proofs.  There  is  here  an  attempt  to  make  the  doctrine  of  im- 
putation ridiculous,  by  a  phraseology  not  sanctioned  by  reputable 
Calvinistic  writers.  (1)  "  The  expression  to  sin  by  imputation 
is  unintelligible,  and  conveys  no  idea.  (2)  The  Apostle  makes 
no  such  distinction,  and  conveys  no  such  idea."  Here  it  is 
obvious  that  the  doctrine  of  imputation  is  held  up  to  scorn.  An 
absurd  phraseology  is  coined,  and  the  real  doctrine  is  lashed  over 
the  absurdity.  We  teach  with  the  standards,  that  Adam  sinned 
as  a  public  head- — a  representative  and  the  guilt  of  his  sin  was 
imputed  to  his  posterity ;  and  they  were  thus  condemned — "  they 
sinned  in  him  and  fell  with  him,"  into  condemnation  and  death. 

Proof  4.  "  Death  reigned ;  and  this  proves  that  they  were  sin- 
ners. If  it  should  be  said,  that  the  death  of  infants  would  prove 
that  they  were  sinners  also,  I  answer —  (a)  That  this  was  an 
inference  which  the  Apostle  does  not  draw."  Here  is  a  plain 
denial  that  infants  are  sinners  representatively, — that  "  they  sin- 
ned in  him."  (b)  "  If  it  did  refer  to  infants,  what  would  it  prove? 
Not  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was  imputed,"  &c.  Plainly  rejecting 
imputation. 

Proof  5th  is  equally  explicit.  He  lays  down  three  arguments 
against  imputation.  1.  The  silence  of  Paul. — "  The  Apostle 
says  nothing  of  it."  2.  "It  is  nothing  but  an  effort  to  explain 
the  ma7i7ier  of  an  event,"  unexplained.  3.  It  is  no  explanation  at 
all,  but  an  increase  of  the  difficulty  ;  it  occasions  a  challenge  of 
God's  justice. 

Proof  6.  The  comment  here  is  on'v.  19.  "  For  as  by  one  man's 
[Adam's]  disobedience,  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obe- 

7* 


78 

cUence  of  our,  [Christ]  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  Now  no 
language  can  be  more  explicit,  than  his  denial  ot"  Adam's  sin  being 
imputed  to  the  many,  and  their  being  thus  made  sinners.  The 
whole  scope  of  his  reasoning-  is  against  it.  "  I'here  is  not  the 
f-lightest  intimation  that  was  by  imputation."  And  as  an  argu- 
ment (which  I  shall  notice  hereafter)  he  alleges  that  it*  Adam's 
j)ostenty  are  condemned  for  his  sin,  without  their  own  act,  then 
Cljrist's  people  are  constituted  righteous  by  his  act,  without  their 
own  voluntary  agency.  The  Apostle  says  explicitly  that  "the 
rn'»ny  were  made  sinners,  by  the  disobedience  of  the  one" — he 
does  not  say,  they  were  placed  in  such  a  position,  that  whenever 
thsy  would  act  morally,  they  would  become  sinners.  Tliis  is  the 
gloss;  but  tlie  text  contradicts  it  expressly  :  "  They  were  made, 
t.  e.  constituted  sinners."  How  ?  No  matter:  any  way  at  all,  so 
fis  it  is  not  by  imputation. 

Proof  7,  quoted  above.  The  doctrine  of  the  Covenant  of 
Works,  is  there  graphically  set  fortii,  and  is  utterly  rejected  as 
»'  a  mere  philosophical  theory."  "  Neither  the  terms  representa- 
tive, covenant,  or  impute  are  ever  applied  to  the  transaction  io 
fhe  sacred  Scriptures." 

On  these  various  points  of  proof,  I  think  it  the  less  necessary  to 
ilwcll,  because  in  his  pleadings,  Mr.  B;..rnes  admits  the  truth  of 
the  charge  and  puts  in  a  plea  of  justification — ho  sets  up  a  defence, 
and  on  that  we  must  join  issue.  But  let  us  first  look  into  the 
standards  of  the  church,  and  see  whether  they  teach  that  Adam's 
sin  IS  imputed  to  his  posterity.  Confession,  ch.  vi.  3.  "They  being 
the  root  of  all  mankind;  the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and 
the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their 
posterity,  descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation,  Ch.  iv. 
From  til  is  original  corruption,  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed, 
/rlisabled,  and  made  opposite  to  all  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all 
/evil,  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions."  Larg.  Cat.  22.  "The 
icovenant  b  Mng  made  with  Adam,  as  a  public  person,  not  for  him- 
self only,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descending  from  him 
by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  that 
fivsx-  transgression."  25.  "  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto 
men  fell,  cotisisteth  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin,  the  want  of 
that  rightyousness  wherein  he  was  created,  and  the  corruption  of 
l)is  nature,  whereby  he  is  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  to  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined  to  all 
evil,  and  that  continually;  which  is  commonly  called  original 
.sin,  aud  froui  which  do  proceed  all  actual  transgressions."  Short. 
Cut.  18,  to  t!ie  same  effisct. 

Here  observe  1.  There  was  a  covenant.  2.  Adam  was  its  pub- 
lic person— its  head.  3.  He  acted  in  the  whole  matter  for  him- 
si^lf  and  his  posterity.  4.  They  sinned  in  him— he  acted  for 
them,  and  by  consequence,  5.  His  sin,  in  all  its  legal  effect,  is 
charged  in  law  upon  them.  6.  The  immediate  legal  effect  is 
condemnation  to  death — "  thou  shalt  starely  die."    7.  A  necessary 


79 

effect  of  this  is  loss  of  original  righteousness  on  the  one  hand  and 
original  corruption — indisposedness,  disability  and  opposition  to  all 
good,  and  inclination  to  all  evil,  on  the  other.  These  things  are 
obvious,  and  to  labour  the  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation 
being  taught  in  our  standards,  would  be  lighting  tapers  to  seek 
the  sun  at  noon  day.  I  will  now  proceed  to  the  defence  of 
brother  Barnes,  and  some  other  points  which  will  turn  up  in  the 
progress  of  the  discussion. 

1.  My  first  remark  is  upon  his  distinction  between  the  guilt  of 
sin  and  sin  itself — the  former,  he  says,  is  imputed,  according  to 
our  Confession,  but  not  the  latter.  "  To  impute  sin  itself  to  a 
man  is  one  thing ;  to  impute  the  obligation  to  punishment,  is  an- 
other thing."  But  while  he  admits  the  latter  to  be  tauglit  in  our 
standards,  he  does  not  here  say  he  believes  either.  He  alleg'es 
tills  distinction  to  be  real  and  accurate  and  material,  and  niy  not 
observing  it,  a  clear  evidence  of  "  the  loose  and  indigested  manner 
in  which  these  charges  have  been  brought  up."  Now,  Mr.  Modera- 
tor, I  really  had  taken  up  the  notion,  loose  or  strict,  that  to  charge 
a  man  witli  the  sin  of  another— or  with  his  own  sin — to  hold  him 
accountable  in  law  for  it,  was  tne  precise  thing  meant  by  imputa- 
tion. When  the  debt  of  Onesimus  was  put  on  Paul's  account — 
charged  to  Paul,  this  was  imputation.  Onesimus  contracted  the 
debt;  a  legal  obligation  lay  upon  him ;  Philemon,  who  held  this 
obligation,  transferred  it  from  Onesimus  to  Paul,  and  this  is  the 
precise  thing  meant  by  imputation.  The  imputation  of  sin  is  the 
transfer  of  its  legal  obligations.  Owen,  xi.  207,  after  argument 
and  illustration,  concludes:  "  Wherefore  to  impute  sin,  is  to  lay 
it  unto  the  charge  of  any,  and  to  deal  with  them  according  to  its 
deserts."  Edwards,  11.  309,  "  But  yet  when  the  doctrine  of  ori- 
ginal sin  is  spoken  of,  it  is  vulgarly  understood  in  that  latitude, 
which  includes  not  only  the  depravity  of  nature,  but  the  imputa- 
tion of  Adam's  first  sin;  or,  in  other  words,  the  liablen^ss  or  ex- 
posedness  of  Adam's  posterity,  in  the  divine  judgment,  to  partake 
of  the  punishment  of  that  sin."  So  the  conductors  of  the  Bibl. 
Rep.  II.  459:  "  According  to  him,  for  one  man  to  bear  the  iniqijity 
of  another,  is  to  have  his  guilt  imputed  to  him.  This  is  our 
doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches.  This  is 
what  is  meant  by  imputation. — He  [Christ]  is  said  to  bear  our  ini- 
quities, precisely  in  the  sense  in  which,  in  Ezekiel,  it  is  declared 
'♦  the  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers."  And  all  Cal- 
vinislic  writers  speak  every  where  of"  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,"  meaning  explicitly  the  transfer  of  its  legal  relations  and 
effects.  The  distinction  therefore  which  the  brother  makes,  has 
no  foundation  in  fact,  and  is  opposed  directly  to  the  universal  lan- 
guage held  by  divines  on  the  subject  of  imputation.  In  this  charge 
it  is  my  design  to  bring  up  the  doctrine  of  imputation  in  one 
aspect  of  it  and  in  the  VII.  in  another  aspect. 

2.  Mr.  Barnes  labours  much  to  prove  that  the  idea  of  personal 
identity  with  Adam  was  the  doctrine  of  the  older  Calvinists — 


80 

"  that  the  posterity  of  Adam  are  not  condemned  for  his  sin  qs  being 
the  sin  of  another  cluirg-ed  on  them,  but  os  truly  and  properly 
theirs ;  that  they  are  subject  to  condemnation  not  aa  m  themselves 
innocent  beings  made  guilty  by  imputation."  The  obvious  design 
of  this  attempt  is  to  make  the  impression,  that  the  Calvinists  of 
this  day  [the  old  school]  have  renounced  Culvinisu),  and  by  couse- 
quence  lie  and  others  may,  vi'ith  equal  impunity,  renounce  the 
whole  doctrine  of  imputation,  botn  as  now  held  and  as  lie  says  it 
was  formerly  held.  [This  argument  was  formally  advanced  by  a 
member  of  the  Presbytery.]  And  I  admit,  the  argument  would 
have  an  overwhelming  power,  if  it  had  a  foundation  in  truth — if 
it  were  true  that  we  have  forsaken  the  old  doctrine  of  imputation 
an  I  embraced  a  new  doctrine,  then  indeed  any  who  please  may 
rej»-<'tours  and  embrace  one  still  newer.  But  fortunately  this  is 
not  ilie  case,  and  the  brother's  attempt  to  make  it  out  is  an  utter 
failure.  Neither  Edwards  nor  any  other  Calvinist  of  note  ever 
taught  that  Adam  and  his  posterity  were  personally  one — that  we 
sinned  in  him  personally,  but  only  putatively — he  being  our  repre- 
sentative and  acting  for  us.  On  this  subject  remark  (1)  Eduards 
affirms  the  doctrine  of  a  covenant  one-ness — a  federal  identity — 
a  moral  unity.  Thus  the  members  of  a  congregation  are  one. 
How  1  personally  ?  No,  but  socially,  legally.  Thus  the  whole 
inhabitants  of  a  city  are  one — not  personally  but  legally — by  com- 
pact, agreement,  covenant.  Their  charter  is  the  legal  instrument 
by  which  they  are  bound  together.  This,  and  not  their  physical 
relations  as  parents  and  children,  make  them  one  nioral  body, 
having  a  moral  head,  who  acts,  agreeably  to  the  covenant  com- 
pact or  charter,  for  the  whole.  This  is  seen  in  his  Treatise  on 
Original  Sin,  p.  II,  ch.  i.  sec.  3.  Works,  II.  425,  &c.,  where, 
though  he  uses  not  the  word  covenant,  he  does  use  terms  which 
afterwards  he  uses  as  synonymous  with  it.  He  calls  it,  p.  432, 
"  God's  establishment."  "  But  I  shall  lake  notice  of  one  or  two 
things  further,  showing  that  Adam's  posterity  were  included  in 
God's  establishment  with  him."  And  p.  438,  "the  constitution  he 
established  with  them."  And  having  summed  up  his  heads  of  ar- 
gument, he  concludes — "  I  cannot  but  think  it  must  appear  to 
every  impartial  person,  that  Moses'  account  does,  with  sufficient 
evidence,  lead  all  mankind,  to  whom  his  account  is  communicated, 
to  understand,  that  God,  in  his  constitution  with  Adam,  dealt  with 
him  as  a  public  person — as  the  head  of  the  species — and  had  re- 
spect to  his  posterity,  as  included  in  him."  Compare  these  with 
P.  IV.  iii.  vol.  II.  p.  543,  where  he  meets  the  objection  against 
imputation,  that  such  imputation  is  unjust  and  unreasonable,  in- 
asmuch as  Adam  and  his  posterity  are  not  one  and  the  same.'''' 
And  he  meets  it  by  affirming  that  his  posterity  is  "  one  with  him''^ 
— that  is  in  a  certain  sense.  "  That  God,  in  every  step  of  his 
proceeding  with  Adam,  in  relation  to  the  covenantor  constitution 
established  with  him,  looked  on  his  posterity  as  being  one  with  him.''^ 
Here  is  a  unity  with  Adam,  not  personal,  but  "  in  relation  to  th 


81 

covenant.'*  It  is  a  fkleml  union,  whefcby  Adam  is  constituted 
"as  the  mora]  head  of  his  posterity"-— "  there  being'  a  constituted 
one-ness  or  identity. ^^  These  italics  are  Edwards'  own,  and  un- 
questionably they  and  the  phrase  *•  moral  head"  were  designed  to 
point  out  a  covenant,  a  federal  or  moral  headship,  in  contradis- 
tinction from  the  natural  headship  or  physical  connexion  as  the 
parent  of  their  mere  animal  nature.  And  so  Stapfer,  whom  he 
quotes,  says.  "Seeing  therefore  that  Adam  with  all  his  posterity 
constitute  but  one  moral  person,  and  are  united  in  the  same  cove- 
nant, and  are  transgressors  of  the  same  law,  they  are  also  to  be 
looked  upon  as  having,  in  a  moral  estimation,  committed  the  same 
transgression  of  the  law,  both  in  number  and  kind."  Stapfer,  too, 
makes  the  unity  dependent  oh  the  covenant — it  is  not  a  personal 
identity  as  brother  Barnes  will  have  it — but  a  federal  unity  consti- 
tuting Adam  and  his  seed  '■^  one  moral  person,''"'  just  as  a  charter 
in  law  constitutes  the  corporators  one  moral  person.  Edwards,  p. 
548,  states  as  an  objection  of  his  opponents,  "  First  di^culiy-^^ 
That  appointing  Adam  to  stand,  in  this  great  affair,  as  the  moral 
head  of  his  posterity,  and  so  treating  them  as  one  with  him,  as 
standing  or  falling  with  him,  is  injurious  to  them."  Here  again 
is  the  covenant  of  works — "  appointing  Adam  to  stand — as  the 
moral  head  of  his  posterity  ;"  nothing  about  personal  one-ness.  In 
this  sense  the  action  of  Adam  is  the  action  of  his  people — repre- 
sentatively— he  acted  for  them.  But  brother  Barnes  loses  sight 
of  this,  and  fixes  his  eye  upon  the  illustrations  from  a  tree  and  its 
branches,  and  from  the  metaphysical  nature  of  identity,  and  de- 
lights to  dwell  upon  the  phrase  '^arbitrary  constitution;"  but  he 
should  do  Edwards  the  justice  to  state  that  this  "  arbitrary  consti- 
tution" "  is  regulated  by  divine  wisdom."  It  is,  in  fact,  as  every 
candid  reader  will  admit,"simply  and  only  "the  covenant  of  works.'* 
I  can  therefore  find  no  just  ground  for  the  doctrine  of  "  personal 
identity"  with  Adam,  without  treating  Edwards  unfairly.  The 
Biblical  Repertory  seems  to  admit  it,  but  shows  plainly  that  the 
admission  makes  that  great  man  inconsistent  with  himself.*  I 
think  if  they  look  a,t  him  again,  they  may  be  convinced  that  Dr. 
Janeway  wrote  his  essay  to  disabuse  Edwards  on  this  point,  not 
without  good  grounds  to  sustain  him. 

I  am  surprised  to  hear  Mr.  Barnes  adduce  Calvin  as  teaching- 
the  doctrine  of  persona]  identity — and  that,  after  the  quietus 
g-iven  by  the  Biblical  Repertory  to  the  very  same  assertions  in 
the  Christian  Spectator ;  and  especially  am  I  surprised  at  his 
citing  the  very  passage  there  cited,  and  giving  the  same  misr, 
translation  of  Calvin's  words,  after  the  severe  and  deserved  re- 
buke given  to  the  Protestant  by  the  Repertory  for  it.  Allow  me 
to  quote  the  paragraph,  as  the  best  possible  refutation.  Rep.  vol, 
III.  p.  418.  "  The  Protestant  need  only  throw  his  eye  the  second 
tune  upon  the  above  passage,  to  see  that  he  has  pnisapprehended 

*  Vol.  iii.  pp.  453—6. 


82 

its  meaning  and  erred  in  his  translation.  He  makes  Calvin  say, 
*  We  are  condemned,  not  by  imputation  merely,  as  if  punishment 
were  exacted  of  us  for  another's  sin,  but  we  undergo  its  punish- 
ment (viz.  the  punishment  of  Adam's  sin,)  because  we  are  charge- 
able toith  ITS  criminality,  (viz.  the  criminality  of  Adam's  sin,) 
[directly  against  the  reviewer  again.]"  Yes,  and  against  Calvin 
too ;  for  there  is  nothing  in  the  original  to  answer  to  the  word 
ITS,  and  the  assertion  entirely  alters  tlie  sense.  Calvin  docs  not 
say,  that  we  are  chargeable  with  the  criminality  of  Adam's  sin, 
but  just  the  reverse:  "Non  per  solara  imputationem  damnamur, 
acsi  alieni  peccati  exigeretur  a  nobis  pa3na ;  sed  ideo  pccnam  ejus 
sustinemus,  quia  et  culpae  sumus  rei,  quatenns  scilicet  nalura 
nostra  in  ipso  vitiata  iniquitatis  reatu  obstringitur  apuu  Deum." 
"  We  are  condemned  not  on  the  ground  of  imputation  solely,  as 
though  the  punishment  of  another's  sin  was  exacted  of  us;  but 
we  endure  its  punishment  because  we  are  also  ourselves  culpa- 
ble, (how!  of  Adam's  sin!  by  no  means,  but  we  are  culpable,) 
in  as  much  as,  viz.  our  nature  having  been  vitiated  in  him,  is 
morally  guilty  before  God."  (Iniquitatis  reatu  obstringitur  apud 
Deum.)  Here  is  a  precise  statement  of  the  sense  in  v;hich  we 
are  morally  guilty,  not  by  imputation,  but  on  account  of  our  own 
inherent  depravity.  Two  things  which  the  Protestant  seems 
fated  never  to  distinguish." 

Nor  IS  Mr.  Barnes  less  fortunate  in  his  proof  from  Calvin's  In- 
stitutes. Take  the  whole  passage,  and  it  is  plain  Calvin  teaches 
the  same  doctrine  as  in  the  above  citation,  viz.  that  men  are  con- 
demned not  only  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  but  also  for  inherent, 
or  native  depravity.  His  words  are,  *'  these  two  things,  therefore, 
should  be  distinctly  observed :  first,  that  our  nature  being  so  to- 
tally vitiated  and  depraved,  we  are,  on  account  of  this  very  cor- 
ruption, considered  as  convicted  and  justly  condemned  in  the 
sight  of  God,  to  whom  nothing  is  acceptable  but  righteousness, 
innocence,  and  purity.  And  this  liableness  to  punishment  arises 
not  from  the  delinquency  of  another :  for  when  it  is  said  that  the 
sin  of  Adam  renders  us  obnoxious  to  the  divine  judgment,  it  is  not 
to  be  understood  as  if  we,  though  innocent,  were  undeservedly 
loaded  with  the  guilt  of  his  sin;  but  because  we  are  all  subject  to 
a  curse,  in  consequence  of  his  transgression,  he  is,  therefore,  said 
to  have  involved  us  in  guilt.  Nevertheless,  we  derive  from  him 
not  only  the  punishment,  but  also  the  pollution  to  which  the 
punishment  is  justly  due.  Wherefore  Augustine,  though  he  fre- 
quently calls  it  the  sin  of  another,  the  more  clearly  to  indicate  its 
transmission  to  us  by  propagation ;  yet,  at  the  same  time,  he  also 
asserts  it  properly  to  belong  to  every  individual.  And  the  apostle 
himself  expressly  declares,  that  'death  has  therefore  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned,'  that  is,  have  been  involved  in 
original  sin,  and  defiled  with  its  blemishes."  Institutes,  Book  II. 
ch.  i.  \  8.  Hence,  clearly,  Calvin  maintained,  that  men  are  con- 
demned on  account  of  depravity  inborn — "  they  bring  their  con- 


83 

demnation  into  the  world  with  them" — and  also  on  account  of 
their  first  father's  sin — "we  are  all  subject  to  a  curse  in  conse- 
quence of  his  transgression."  The  same  thing  he  also  teaches  in 
his  creed  written  for  the  school  at  Geneva.  "  Quo  fit,  ut  singuli 
nascuntur  originali  peccato  infecti,  et  ab  ipso  maledicti,  et  a  Deo 
damnati,  non  propter  alienum  delictum  dunlaxat,  sed  propter  im- 
probitatem,  quas  intra  eas  est."  Biblical  Rep.  vol.  III.  page  421. 
"  Whence  it  happens  that  they  every  one  are  born  infected  with 
original  sin,  and  on  account  of  it  cursed,  and  condemned  of  God, 
not  on  account  of  another  man's  delinquency  only,  but  on  account 
of  depravity  which  is  within  themselves."  This  is  the  precise 
doctrine  of  our  Confession,  chap.  VI.  \  6.  "  Every  sin,  both  ori- 
ginal and  actual,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sin- 
ner, whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,"  &c.  And 
sec.  1  states,  that  our  first  parents  "sinned  in  eating  the  forbidden 
fruit ;"  and  sec.  3,  "the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed  to  all  their 
posterity."  Thus  Calvin  and  our  Confession  agree  in  making 
imputation  include  both  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  and  the  depravity 
resulting  from  it ;  and  neither  teach  the  doctrine  of  personal 
identity. 

The  attempt  to  make  Boston  teach  this  doctrine  is  equally  un- 
successful. Even  in  the  passage  he  quotes,  he  is  refuted — "for 
God's  juslice  doth  not  punish  men  for  a  sin  which  is  no  way 
■their's."  No,  truly,  the  sin  is  some  way  their's,  or  they  could  not 
suffer  for  it.  But  how  1  Is  it  by  personal  identity  with  Adam  % 
Let  Boston  himself  answer.  "  Adam,  by  his  sin,  became  not  only 
guilty,  but  corrupt;  and  so  transmits  guilt  and  corruption  to  his 
posterity.  Gen.  v.  2.  Job.  xiv.  4.  By  his  sin  he  stript  himself 
of  his  original  righteousness,  and  corrupted  himself:  we  were  in 
him  representatively,  being  represented  by  him,  as  our  moral 
head,  in  the  covenant  of  works ;  we  were  in  him  seminally,  as  our 
natural  head  ;  hence  we  fell  in  him,  and  by  his  disobedience  were 
made  sinners;  as  Levi  in  the  loins  of  Abraham  paid  tithes.  Heb. 
vii.  9, 10.  His  first  sin  is  imputed  to  us."  State.  II.  \  1.  Thus 
Boston  holds  no  doctrine  of  personal  identity,  but  of  representa- 
tion, or  moral  unity  with  Adam,  on  the  ground  of  which  represen- 
tation "  his  sin  is  imputed  to  us,"  and  by  the  natural  connexion 
we  became  depraved,  and  this  depravity  is  sin  in  us. 

But  most  of  all  am  I  amazed  at  Mr.  Barnes'  attempt  to  prove 
that  the  doctrine  of  personal  identity  with  Adam,  and  his  moral 
turpitude  becoming  ours,  was  held  by  Turretin.  How  any  rpan, 
after  reading  the  articles  on  imputation  in  the  Biblical  Repertory, 
vol.  III.  could  venture  such  an  assertion,  is  most  marvellous  to 
me.  I  can  hardly  conceive  of  a  more  triumphant  refutation  than 
is  there  given  to  this  allegation.  Nor  is  the  wonder  diminished 
at  all  by  the  passage  adduced  in  proof  by  Mr.  Barnes.  Turretin, 
as  he  quotes  him,  says,  "  they  have  sinned  in  him,  [Adam,]  and 
are  bound  with  him  (communi  culpa)  in  a  common  criminality.^* 
But  how  1     If  brother  Barnes  means  by  common  criminality,  mo- 


84 

ral  turpitude,  and  thinks  that  Turretin  maintains  that  the  moral 
turpitude  of  Adam  was  infused  into  his  posterity,  he  is  mistaken: 
for  by  commrmi  culpa,  the  very  next  branch  of  the  sentence 
shows,  he  means  the  sin  of  Adam  as  our  common  head,  as  our  re- 
presentative. And  again — "  the  justice  of  God  docs  not  inflict 
punishment  upon  him  that  does  not  deserve  it,  [immerenti,]  but 
upon  him  that  does  deserve  it.  [merenti.]"  True,  but  how  does 
he  deserve  iti  Is  it  by  a  personal  identity  and  infusion  of  moral 
turpitude?  Or  is  it  by  moral,  federal,  covenant  unity  and  conse- 
quent imputation'?  Let  me  answer  in  the  language  of  the  Biblical 
Repertory,  vol.  III.  p.  438.  "Now,  as  to  the  second  point,  viz. 
that  Turretin  and  other  Calvinists  do  not  use  the  "words  guilt,  de- 
merit, ill-desert,  &c.  as  the  Spectator  understands  them,  in  a 
moral  sense,  we  have  already  proved  it,  and  might  abundantly 
prove  it  again,  because  they  expressly,  repeatedly,  and  pointedly 
affirm  the  contrary.  Thus,  when  he  says,  '  We  are  constituted 
truly  sinners  by  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,'  he  tells  us  as 
plainly  as  language  permits,  in  what  sense.  '  Ista  Veritas  est  im- 
putationis,  non  infusionis,  juridica,  non  moralis.'  '  To  impute  is  a 
forensic  term,  meaning  to  set  to  one's  account.  '  Non  est  actus 
physicus,  sed  forensis  et  judicialis' — it  is  to  render  one  a  sinner  in 
the  eye  of  the  law,  not  morally — as  the  imputation  of  righteous- 
ness renders  legally,  not  inherently  just."  After  he  had  read  all 
this,  for  brother  Barnes  to  say,  "  the  sentiments  of  ihese  men,  who 
were  surely  competent  to  state  what  old  Calvinism  was,  cannot 
be  mistaken,'*  amazes  me !  How  strangely  does  he  mistake 
them  ! 

Before  I  quit  this  point,  let  me  present  what  I  doubt  not  has 
been  the  belief  of  the  church  in  all  ages,  in  the  language  of  the 
late  Dr.  Mason,  vol.  I.  p.  170.  "The  world,  then,  is  full  of  the 
imputation  of  sin.  And  why  shall  it  not  as  well  be  imputed  to  a 
representative  for  expiation  as  from  a  representative  for  punish- 
ment?" 

From  this  strong  ground  we  are  not  to  be  driven  by  the  plea, 
that  righteousness  aiid  sin,  being  moral  and  personal  qualities  and 
acts,  cannot  be  transferred  to  a  surety.  We  know  it.  Neither 
do  the  Scriptures  teach,  nor  we  maintain,  any  such  transfer.  In- 
stead of  establishing,  it  would  destroy  our  doctrine.  "For  if  my 
personal  sin  could  be  taken  from  me,  and  made  the  personal  sin  of 
another,  he  must  then  suifer  for  himself,  and  not  for  me,  as  I 
would  be  per.-onally  innocent.  He  would  not  be  under  the  impu- 
tation of  my  sin,  because  I  would  have  none  to  impute  ;  and  I 
could  not  enjoy  the  benefit  of  his  righteousness;  because,  on  the 
one  hand,  I  would  require  none,  and,  on  the  other,  he,  as  suffer- 
ing for  himself,  would  have  none  to  offer.  So  that  here  would 
be  no  representation,  neither  the  substance  nor  the  shadow  of  a 
vicarious  atonement.  Therefore,  while  my  personal  demerit 
must  for  ever  remain  my  own,  the  consequences  of  it  are  borne  by 
my  glorious  surety.     It  is  this  which  renders  the  imputation  of 


85 

sin  to  the  Lord  Jesus,  a  doctrine  so  acceptable  to  tlie  conscience, 
and  so  consoling  to  the  heart  of  a  convinced  sinner.  And  this 
simple  distinction  between  a  transfer  of  personal  acts  to  a  substi- 
tute, and  the  transfer  of  their  legal  connexion,  which  is  properly 
imputation,  relieves  the  friends  of  truth  from  the  embarrassment 
in  which  an  incautious  manner  of  speaking  has  sometimes  in- 
volved them,  and  blows  into  the  air  the  quibbles  and  cavils  of  its 
enemies."  The  doctrine  of  personal  identity  with  Adam,  and 
transfer  of  personal  acts,  always  has  been  a  figment  cast  upon 
Calvinists  as  a  slander,  and  so  esteemed  by  them.  1  should  not 
have  spent  so  much  time  in  refuting  the  charge,  but  for  the  use 
made  of  this  caricature  to  impress  the  popular  mind  with  the  ab- 
surdity of  Calvinistic  dogmas,  and  thus  to  bring  the  real  doctrine 
of  imputation  into  discredit,  and  to  give  currency  to  the  idea  that 
Calvinism  is  one  "mere  philosophical  theory"  pursuing  after 
another. 

We  admit  that  personal  acts  cannot  be  transferred,  but  affirm 
that  they  are  imputed.  Imputation  lies  in  transferring  to  a  surety 
not  the  qualities  and  acts  themselves,  but  their  legal  connexion. 
It  is  a  transfer  o^  obligation  and  of  right. 

We  now  proceed  to  what  Mr.  Barnes  is  pleased  to  call  "  the 
second  theory  on  the  subject  of  imputation,"  but  which  is  the  sim- 
ple and  only  doctrine  ever  held  in  the  church  to  any  extent.  "It 
consists,  says  he,  in  the  doctrine  that  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not 
reckoned  or  imputed  to  his  posterity  as  ^rw?y  and  properly  their^s^ 
as  that  for  which  they  are  blameworthy  or  ill-deserving,  but  is 
their's  simply  by  imputation,  or  putatively ;  that  a  sin  is  reckoned 
to  them,  or  charged  on  them,  which  they  never  committed,  and 
that  they  are  subjected  to  punishment  for  that  sin,  without  being 
personally  or  really  to  blame.  A  part  of  this  punishment  is  said 
to  consist  in  the  sin  itself,  with  which  man  comes  into  the  world, 
and  a  part  in  the  personal  sufferings  to  which  he  is  subjected  in 
this  life  and  the  world  to  come,  and  which  are  in  all  respects  the 
same  as  if  the  infant  had  himself  committed  the  sin.  This  is  said 
to  be  by  a  sovereign  arrangement  of  God  appointing  Adam  to  be 
in  all  respects  the  representative  of  his  posterity."  If  there  be  no 
intention  here  to  insinuate  that  infants  suffer  in  the  world  to 
come,  and  if  there  be  no  peculiar  meaning  in  his  terms,  I  feel  pre- 
pared to  admit  this  as  a  correct  statement  of  our  doctrine  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  standards.  And  this  doctrine  Mr.  Barnes  rejects 
under  ten  distinct  heads  of  remark.     These  in  order. 

1.  "  That  it  is  an  abandonment  of  the  ground  of  the  older  Cal- 
vinists." This,  I-  have  shown  above,  is  incorrect.  On  the  last 
clause  only,  viz.  "  Turretin  says,  the  ill-desert  of  Adam  is  trans- 
ferred to  his  posterity."  Bib.  Rep.  vol.  III.  p.  436.  This  theory 
says  it  is  not;  I  would  remark,  it  is  unfair  to  append  the  Reper- 
tory's sanction  to  that  saying  of  Turretin,  without  telling  us  in 
what  sense  the  term  "  ill-desert,"  according  to  the  Repertory,  is 
used  by  Turretin,     "  They  [the  opponents  of  Princeton,]  consider 

8 


80 

Turretin  to  use  the  word  ill-desert  in  a  moral  sense"—"  in  this 
they  commit  an  obvious  mistake.  Turretin  and  old  Calvinists  ge- 
nerally, do  not  use  the  words  guilt,  demerit,  ill-desert  in  a  moral 
sense" — "  the  ill-desert  of  which  Turretin  speaks  as  being  trans- 
ferred, is  not  moral  character  or  turpitude,  but  legal  responsibility, 
such  as  exists  between  a  sponsor  and  him  for  whom  he  acts." 
This  they  abundantly  prove,  and  this  brother  Barnes  ought  in 
candour  to  have  stated  as  their  opinion. 

2.  This  theory  appears  at  least  to  be  a  departure  from  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith.  The  language  of  the  standards  of  our  church 
was  evidently  derived  from  the  theory  that  the  sin  of  Adam  was 
truly  and  properly  ours.  Thus  it  says,  "All  mankind  sinned  in 
him,  and  fell  with  him."  Now  you  will  observe  that  this  is  Mr. 
Barnes'  first  theory,  which  he  rejects— which  all  reject.  Conse- 
quently he  rejects  what  he  believes  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the 
standards.  But  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  standards,  as  has  been 
made  to  appear.  The  phrase  "  all  mankind  sinned  in  him,"  &:c.  he 
says,  is  proof  that  Adam's  sin  "  teas  truly  and  properly  ours !" 
Strange !  when  the  first  part  of  the  sentence  tells  how  it  is  ours, 
viz.  by  his  acting,  "  not  for  himself  only,  but  for  his  posterity" — 
for  us,  representatively,  we  sinned  in  him  not  'personally. 

3.  The  third  objection  is,  because  our  doctrine  "  employs  the 
word  impute  in  an  unscriptural  sense."  In  meeting  this  it  may 
be  well  to  remember  that  it  is  not  a  dispute  about  the  term,  but 
really  concerning  the  thing — what  is  imputation  1 

Owen  has  given,  no  doubt,  the  correct  idea  of  the  term  and  the 
thing:  Justif  Works,  xi.  205,  "  Hashab,  the  word  first  used  for 
this  purpose,  signifies  '  to  think,  to  esteem,  to  judge,'  or  '  to  re- 
fer' a  thing  or  matter  unto  any  ;  'to  impute'  or  *to  be  imputed' 
for  good  or  evil — To  judge  or  esteem  this  or  that  good  or  evil,  to 
belong  unto  him,  to  be  his."  And  so  the  corresponding  Greek 
terms. 

It  has  been  very  common  on  this  subject  to  admit  j^rsi  an  impu- 
tation of  that  which  properly  belongs  to  the  person  before,  and 
secondly,  of  what  did  not  properly  belong  to  him  prior  to  the  im- 
putation of  it.  But  there  often  arises  obscurity  from  the  vague- 
ness of  the  terms  properly  belong.  The  chief  confusion  however 
I  think  arises  from  not  considering  that  imputation  is  an  action  of 
judgment,  and  when  applied  to  morality  and  the  proceedings  of  a 
ruler  and  judge  has  exclusive  reference  to  legal  relations.  Now  legal 
relations  are  clearly  distinguishable  from  moral  conduct  and  cha- 
racter. I  perform  a  moral  act — I  defraud  my  neighbour.  The 
moral  turpitude  is  one  thing :  and  the  legal  relation  or  my  expo- 
sure to  punishment  is  another  thing.  Imputation  is  the  act  of  my 
ruler  and  judge  declaring  the  connexion  between  the  act  and  its 
punishment.  It  includes  two  things.  1.  The  judgment  that  the  act 
is  mine  properly — personally.  2.  The  legal  consequence  must 
follow — I  must  be  punished.  The  latter  is  based  on  the  former. 
Onesimus  borrows  money  of  Philemon,  and  is  debited  thus :  '  One- 


87 

simus,  to  money  borrowed,  two  miles,'  Can  this  money  be  reco- 
vered of  Paul?  Certainly  not :  Paul  did  not  borrow  the  money — 
the  act  of  contracting  the  debt  is  not  his,  and  it  never  can  become 
his.  And  so  it  is  in  every  possible  case.  The  act  of  Adam  never 
can  become  properly  my  act.  The  act  of  Christ  never  can  become 
properly  my  act.  And  thus  all  Calvinists  deny  the  possibility  of 
Adam's  sin  and  Christ's  righteousness  being  imputed  ;  and  this 
is  not  therefore  at  all  wiiat  they  mean  by  imputation.  But  now  the 
other  part  is,  can  such  a  relationship  be  constituted  between  One- 
simus  and  Paul,  that  the  legal  obligation  may  be  transferred  to 
the  latter  1  May  not  Paul  become  surety  for  his  friend  '.'  and  thus 
come  under  his  legal  relations'!  Suppose  this  suretyship  entered 
into  before  the  debt  was  contracted  ?  In  either  case,  Onesimus 
failing,  there  is  a  transfer  of  legal  obligation :  and  Philemon  im- 
putes to  Paul,  not  the  act  of  Onesimus,  but  the  legal  obligation  : 
he  charges  him  with  liability  to  a  demand  of  law — he  transfers 
the  legal  obligation :  Paul  is  bound  in  law  by  an  act  which  was 
not  his  own.  The  obligation  to  pay  the  two  mites  is  now  "rec- 
koned to  a  man  which  did  not  belong  to  him."  This  is  the  fact 
of  the  case.  Thus  far  there  can  be  no  diversity  of  opinion.  But, 
says  Mr.  Barnes,  Paul  assumed — he  assented  to  the  debt,  and 
thereby  made  it  his  own.  This  is  not  exactly  according  to  truth. 
Paul's  assumption  did  not  make  the  debt  his  own.  Because,  if  it 
was  Paul's  own,  it  was  not  Onesimus's,  he  was  released ;  for, 
the  reckoning  of  it  to  both,  would  be  a  double  reckoning  and  ma- 
nifestly unjust.  Philemon  only  can  make  the  transfer  of  legal 
obligation :  until  he  does  it,  the  obligation  still  lies  upon  Onesi- 
mus and  not  on  Paul.  Philemon  may  choose  to  let  his  book  ac- 
count stand  as  originally  it  stood,  and  Paul  and  Onesimus  both 
cannot  change  it  in  any  way  but  by  paying  the  debt.  Yea,  farther; 
Paul  cannot  pay  the  debt — his  offering  Philemon  two  mites  lays 
the  latter  under  no  obligation  to  receive  it  and  enter  a  credit  to 
Onesimus,  except  he  do  it  as  the  agent — the  representative  of  the 
debtor.  In  that  case,  if  Paul  be  the  legal  representative  of  Onesi- 
mus and  not  otherwise,  is  Philemon  bound  to  receive  it,  and  to 
enter  the  proper  credit.  Paul's  agency  is  necessary,  and  his  assent 
is  necessary  to  his  becoming  agent,  and  liable  to  the  demand. 
When  both  Paul  and  Philemon  are  agreed,  then  only  can  the 
transfer  of  legal  obligation  take  place.  "  The  simple  truth  then 
is,  that  things  are  reckoned  just  as  they  were  not,"  before  Philemon 
BO  reckoned  them  :  but  yet  reckoning,  or  setting  down  against 
Paul  a  debt  of  two  mites,  which  were  not  set  down  against  him 
the  minute  before,  is  based  upon  certain  relations  existing  between 
Paul  and  Onesimus.  This  is  a  plain  case :  now  let  us  apply  it. 
Philemon,  by  hypothesis,  is  God  ;  Onesimus  is  Adam :  Paul,  his 
posterity.  Adam  had  sinned :  God  reckons — sets  down  in  the 
book  of  his  account,  1st,  the  act;  2d  the  guilt  of  it — the  obligation 
to  punishment— these  are  properly  Adam's  own.  But  now  the 
p9Jnt  is;  Cm  God  or  does  he  reckon  or  impute  this  obligation  to 


88 

the  posterity?  In  answering  this  brother  Barnes  and  I  will  agree 
thus  far,  that  God  cannot  and  will  not  unless  there  is  a  legal  rela- 
tion existing,  as  the  basis  of  the  imputation — there  must  be  a 
connexion  between  Onesimus  and  Paul — Adam  and  his  posterity. 
What  then  is  that  basis?  The  ffssenf  of  the  posterity,  says  Mr. 
Barnes;  the  covenant  of  works,  wherein  God  appointed  Adam  a 
covenant  head  of  his  posterity,  affirm  our  standards.  "So  if  man 
flsswrnes  the  crime  of  Adam,  or  assents  to  it,"  says  Mr.  Barnes, 
"  it  may  be  reckoned  unto  him  just  as  it  is — that  is  as  assumed  or 
assented  to."  Clearly,  the  assent  of  man  according  to  this,  is 
necessary  to  God's  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  him :  such  impu- 
tation depends  upon  such  assumption — voluntary  action — assent 
must  precede  liability  to  punishment — "by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  did  [not]  come  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,"  it  could 
only  come  by  the  assent  of  all.  On  the  contrary  the  legal  rela- 
tions on  which  this  imputation  takes  place  are  found  in  the  fact 
of  the  one  man's  moral,  legal,  covenant  unity  with  his  posterity. 
He  represented  them. 

Still  more  clear  will  the  truth  shine  forth  if  we  apply  this  case 
to  illustrate  the  relation  men  sustain  to  the  second  Adam.  Here, 
Philemon  is  in  the  place  of  God;  the  sinner  is  represented  by 
Onesimus;  Paul  occupies  the  place  of  Jesus.  The  sinner  has 
transgressed  :  God  imputes  the  act  and  the  legal  obligation  to 
him;  Jesus,  (in  becoming  the  head  of  the  new  covenant)  assumes 
his  liabilities ;  God  imputes  or  reckons  him  "  under  the  law" — 
"  made  sin  for  us" — the  legal  obligation  is  transferred  ;  not  the 
acts  of  men  ;  not  their  moral  turpitude  ;  but  their  liability  to  suf- 
fer the  curse,  pass  over  to  the  great  Surety.  As  Onesimus  con- 
tracted the  debt,  so  the  sinner  is  charged  in  the  book  of  God's  ac- 
count: as  Paul  a.ssumed  the  debt  of  his  friend,  so  Jesus  assumes 
the  debt  of  our  sin :  as  Philemon  imputed  it  to  Paul,  so  God  im- 
puted our  sin  to  Jesus  :  As  Paul's  agency,  flowing  from  his  con- 
nexion with  his  friend,  is  the  basis  of  the  imputation ;  so  the 
suretyship  of  Christ,  resulting  from  his  headship  over  his  church, 
is  the  basis  of  the  imputation  of  their  sin  to  him,  and  consequently 
of  his  righteousness  to  them,  Jesus  obeyed  the  law  of  God — God 
imputed  the  act  and  the  legal  relation  to  him,  because  they  were 
properly  his  own :  but  Jesus  is  so  connected  with  his  people  by  a 
moral  arrangement,  (the  covenant  of  grace,)  that  God  may  and 
doth  impute  to  them,  not  the  acts  of  Jesus  personally — not  his 
moral  purity  and  character— but  his  legal  relation,  his  right  to 
reward,  his  title  to  heaven,  his  rightcQusness.  "For  as  by  one 
man's  [Adam's]  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the 
obedience  of  one  [Christ]  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  Thus 
their  sin,  in  its  legal  consequences,  is  reckoned  to  their  Saviour, 
which  was  not  his  before  the  imputation ;  and  his  righteousness  is 
ref?koned  to  them  which  was  not  theirs  before  the  imputation. 

i  have  one  or  two  brief  remarks  yet  on  this  third  head  of  objec- 
tion. "God's  reckonings  are  according  to  truth,''*  says  Mr.  B, 
*' Jn  the  theory  which  we  are  now  considering,  man  is  reckoned 


89' 

as  having  committed  a  sin,  which,  in  the  same  breath,  we  are 
told  he  never  coinmiUe(V  Now  in  one  sense  these  statements 
are  according-  to  triilh,  and  in  another  they  are  not.  That  we 
committed  personalli/  the  sin  of  Adam  is  not  true.  That  we  com- 
mitted representatively  the  sin  of  Adam  is  true.  Tliat  God  rec- 
kons things  as  they  are  is  true.  That  God  reckons  things  as  they 
were  not  before  tiie  reckoning  is  equally  true. 

As  to  the  terra  impute  or  reckon,  -let  us  see  whether  it  implies 
always  a  setting  down  of  things  as  they  were  before  the  reckon- 
ing. Num.  xviii.  27,  30,  "  And  this  your  heave-ofi'ering  shall  be 
RECKONED  uuto  you  as  though  it  were  the  corn  of  tiie  threshing 
floor  and  as  the  fulness  of  the  wine-press;" — "it  shall  be  counted 
unto  the  I^evites  as  the  increase  of  the  threshing-floor  and  as  the 
increase  of  the  wine-press."  Was  this  tithe  of  the  tithes  the  corn 
of  the  threshing-floor  or  the  fulness  of  the  wine-press  1  Or  was 
it  only  a  sample  of  the  whole  ]  Job  xix.  15 — "  my  maids  count  me 
for  a  stranger."  Was  Job  really  a  stranger  ]  or  was  he  only 
treated  as  onel  But  the;plainest  cases  are  in  Rom.  iv.  3.  "Abra- 
ham's faith  was  counted  to  him  for  righteousness."  Was  his  faith 
in  reality  his  righteousness?  V.  6:  "God  imputeth  righteousness 
without  works."  Was  the  righteousness  his  before  it  was  im- 
puted? Paul  says,  no,  it  was  without  works,  and  yet  righteous- 
ness was  reckoned  to  him.  Every  man  has  sinned,  and  yet  God 
does  not  impute  sin — "  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom  the  Lord  will 
not  impute  sin,"  Every  man  has  sinned;  now  if  God  imputes 
things  always  as  they  were  bcfJjre-  the  imputation,  all  men  must 
abide  forever  under  the  curse  due  to  sin. — V.  11,  "  that  righteous- 
ness might  be  imputed  to  them  also."  Was  it  theirs  before  the 
imputation]  If  it  was,  then  they  needed  not  imputation  to  make 
it  theirs;  and  if  they  needed  no  imputation,  they  needed  no  faith 
to  secure  the  imputation  of  righteousness  to  them.  2  Cor.  v.  19: 
"  not  imputing  their  trespasses  to  them."  Now,  if  God  always 
imputes  things  as  they  were  prior  to  the  imputation,  he  would 
reckon  them  sinners — fasten  down  their  trespasses  upon  all  men, 
and  they  must  perish. 

4.  Mr,  Barnes  says  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  above  stated,  "is 
a  violation  in  almost. express  terms  of  the  principles  of  the  divine 
government,  as  laid  down  in  the  Bible.  Ezek.  xviii.  2,  3,  4,  19, 
20 — "  the  fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes  and  the  children's  teeth 
are  set  on  edge."  Tliat  is,  "  Why  do  you  charge  this  as  a  princi- 
ple of  the  divine  administration  that  the  children  are  punished  for 
thei  sins  of  their  parents."  Mr.  Barnes  puts  capitals  in,  thus : 
'  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die.     The  son  shall  not  bear 

THE  INIQUITY  OF  HIS  FATHER ;    NEITHER  SHALL   THE   FATHER  BEAR 

THE  INIQUITY  OF  THE  SON."  Now  let  US  first  ascertain  what  it  is 
to  bear  iniquity.  Is  it  not  to  suffer  pain  1  to  endure  sorrow  and 
privation  ?  Is  it  not  to  experience  death  as  a  penal  evil  ]  Does 
Mr.  Barnes  then  mean  to  say,  that  in  no  case  does  the  govern- 
ment of  God  allow  the  son  tobear  the  iniquity  of  the  father?  Why 

8* 


90' 

then  has  lie  afrirmed  the  contrary  of  this  !  Mad  he  indeed  forgot- 
ten his  own  languajro?  p.  1'2H.  *' This  fact  is  one  that  is  apparent; 
and  that  accords  with  all  tlie  analooy  in  the  moral  government  of 
God.  The  drunkard  secures  commonly  as  a  result,  that  his  Family 
will  be  reduced  to  beggary,  want  and  wo.  His  sin  ie  commonly 
the  certain  occasion  of  their  being  sinners ;  and  the  immediate 
cause  of  their  loss  of  property  and  comfort,  and  of  their  being 
overwhelmed  in  wretchedness  and  grief.  A  murderer  will  entail 
disgrace  and  shame  on  his  family,"  &-c.  Is  not  this  the  children 
bearing  the  iniquity  of  their  fathers  ?  When  the  youthful  off- 
spring of  Achan,  of  Korah  and  his  company,  of  the  whole  seven 
nations  of  Canaan,  were  cut  off,  were  put  to  death  by  God's  com- 
mand, whose  iniquity  did  they  bear?  Was  it  their  ownl  Or 
their  fathers?  Mr.  Barnes  knows  well  and  has  well  stated  the 
doctrine,  that  the  son  does  often  bear  his  father's  iniquity.  He 
knows  well  the  principle  on  which  it  proceeds,  viz.  that  of  moral 
unity.  "  God  has  therefore  grouped  the  race  into  separate  commu- 
nities." And  to  the  whole  extent  in  which  the  parents  represent 
or  act  for  their  children,  the  consequences  of  their  acts  follow 
them.  And  the  denial  of  this  is  a  rejection  of  the  entire  basis  of 
all  social  organization,  whether  of  immediate  divine  or  human 
arrangement.  Then  you  contradict  Ezekiel  ?  No,  I  do  not ; 
neither  does  Mr.  Barnes  in  the  passage  last  cited.  What  then 
does  Ezekiel  mean?  Why  he  simply  affirms  that  every  individual 
shall  suffer  the  legitimate  consequences  of  his  own  sin — that  no 
individual  shall  suffer  for  another's  own  private  or  individual  of- 
fence. He  is  speaking  of  individuals,  and  rebuking  the  error, 
which  would  transfer  legal  obligations  without  any  moral,  social, 
or  covenant  relation  existing  as  the  basis  of  the  transfer.  But 
now  our  doctrine  is,  that  a  covenant  does  exist,  wherein  our  first 
father  Adam  represented  the  race — he  was  their  federal  liead  and 
acted  for  them,  and  the  moral  government  of  God  must  be  sub- 
verted before  the  sin  of  the  father  shall  cease  to  be  visited  upon 
his  children. 

5.  The  fifth  objection  is  the  same  as  the  first.  *'  It  is  an  aban- 
donment of  the'old  system," — And  only  to  correct  some  expressions 
is  it  necessary  to  notice  it  again.  "We  have,"  says  he,  "in  this 
system  of  God's  imputing  to  men,  sins  which  in  no  proper  sense 
belong  to  them." — What  brother  Barnes  may  mean  by  proper 
sense,  I  know  not.  But  I  know,  and  he  should  know,  that  the 
old  school  system  makes  the  representation  of  all -men  in  Adam, 
his  acting  as  their  federal  head,  the  basis  of  imputation.  His  sin 
was  their's  representatively,  and  therefore  is  imputed  ;  just  as 
Christ's  righteousness  is  their's  representatively,  because  he  is 
their  ever  living  head  and  surety,  and  is  therefore  imputed  to  them. 

6.  "  The  theory  is  liable  to  a  sixth  objection,  that  it  "makes  sin 
both  cause  and  effect.  It  teaches  that  the  sin  itself  with  whicii 
men  are  born  is  a  punishment  for  Adam's  sin."  On  the  whole 
paragraph,  I  have  these  remarks:     1.  The  very  ground  of  objec- 


91 

lion  18  a  truth  of  our  Confession,  the  guilt  of  this  [Adam's]  sifl, 
was  innputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin  and  corrupted  nature 
conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,'*  and  "  every  sin,  both  original  and 
actual,  doth  in  its  own  nature,  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner, 
whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God,"  &c.  2.  It  is  a 
prominent  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  and  an  important  principle  in  the 
government  of  God.  Nothing  is  more  common  and  more  fearful 
Ihan  the  judgment  of  God,  which  delivers  men  up  to  sin  as  a  pun- 
ishment tor  past  sin.  Rom.  ii.  21—30.  Because  of  their  wicked- 
ness— "  God  also  gave  them  up  to  uncleanness,"  &.c.  "  And  even 
as  they  did  not  like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave 
them  over  to  a  reprobate  mind,"  &c.  "My  spirit  shall  not 
always  strive  with  man."  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart — deli- 
vered him  up  to  his  own  free  will — as  a  punishment  for  his  sin. 
On  what  other  principle  can  Mr.  Barnes  justify  the  ways  of  God 
to  man"?"  The  fact  he  admits — men  are  born  with  a  corrupt 
tendency  to  sin,  and  so  soon  as  they  act,  they  will  sin.  Here  is 
the  fact,  and  it  is  undeniable.  Now  how  is  this,  reconcileable 
with  God's  justice?  If  this  inborn  corruption  is  not  a  judicial 
infliction  ;  nor  the  result  of  the  individuals  own  actual — his  per- 
sonal sin — as  is  clearly  the  case^ — how  can  it  be  reconciled  with 
the  justice  of  God  1  "  How  can  justice  make  punishment  precede 
transgression  or  ill  desert  1"  How  can  the  sufferings  of  infant 
humanity,  be  reconciled  with  the  idea,  that  no  moral  reason — 
no  just  exposure  to  pain  and  woes,  existed  prior  to  the  endurance 
of  them?  3.  The  paragraph  intimates  that  we  teach  that  "the 
holy  God  should  create  sin  in  the  heart  of  innocence."  This  is 
uncandid,  at  least,  for  two  reasons.  1.  The  whole  world  knows 
that  we  profess  to  believe  that  all  men  are  by  nature  under  con- 
demnation, are  guilty  and  not  innocent.  2.  It  is  equally  well 
known,  that  we  reject  with  abhorrence  the  doctrine  of  God's 
creating  sin.  And  the  fact  of  existence  lies  in  the  way  of  all 
schools  alike. 

7.  "  It  explains  nothing."  This  is  mere  assertion.  I  assert  the 
contrary.  It  explains  very  many  things,  and  very  satisfactorily  ; 
but  not  every  thing.  He  here  repeats  and  again  under  the  8th, 
the  incorrect  affirmation,  that  our  system  makes  men  ^^  guilty  of 
a  sin,  which  in  no  sense  we  committed."  How  often  have  I 
shown  that  in  some  sense  we  did  commit  it;  viz.  in  our  repre- 
sentative Adam  ? 

8.  "  It  is  mere  theory."  This  again  is  mere  assertion.  "  The 
doctrine,  it  is  believed,  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures."  This 
again  is  simply  assertion.  I  can  drop  the  negative  and  use  the 
sentence  in  perfect  truth.  "  The  doctrine,  it  is  believed,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Scriptures."  But  under  this  8th  head,  something 
else  is  introduced.  If  our  native  depravity  and  guilt  through 
Adam,  lays  us  under  condemnation  and  death,  it  must  be  repented 
of  before  forgiveness  can  issue.  Did  you  ever  repent  of  original 
sin?     This  question  has  vapoured  long  enough — let  us  dispose  of 


92 

it.  And  first,  I  remark.  Repentance  is  turning  from  sin  to  God/ 
Short.  Cat.  87.  "  Repentance  unto  life  is  a  saving  grace, 
Whereby  a  sinner  *  *  *  dotli  *  ♦  *  turn  from  it  [sin]  unto  God.***" 
This  is  repentaiice  in  the  strict  and  true  sense.  Secondly,  Its 
ar.comjmntments  are  however  set  down  in  the  answer,  viz.  1.  Sor- 
row, "  with  grief  and  hatred  of  sin."  2.  The  impelling  and  show- 
ing motives  are  also  set  forth,  viz.  (a)  conviction,  "out  of  a  true 
sense  of  his  sin,"  {h)  illumination  or  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel, 
"and  apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  Christ."  And  thirdly, 
The  concomitant  purposes  of  the  soul  in  future,  "  with  full  pur- 
pose of,  and  endeavour  after  new  obedience."  Now  in  this  true 
and  scriptural  idea  of  the  term,  I  aver  that  every  gracious  man 
can  and  doth  repent  of  original  sin.  \jook  first  at  the  "  impelling 
motives  to  action,  "  out  of  a  true  sense  of  sin."  A  true  sense  of 
original  sin  views  it  in  its  threefold  relations,  viz.  "  The  guilt  of 
Adam's  sin,  the  want  of  original  righteousness,  and  the  corrup- 
tion of  his  whole  nature."  Now  let  a  man  see  that  "  he  is  con- 
demned already,"  that  "  by  nature  he  is  a  child  of  wrath,"  that 
"  the  judgment  is  by  one  [Adam]  to  condemnation" — that  "  he  is 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins."  Let  him  see  that  so  far  from 
having  by  nature  any  original  righteousness,  he  is  vile  and  pol- 
luted— tha-t,  unclean  thing,  he  was  born  of  an  unclean  thing — 
that  his  very  root  and  origin  is  vile — that  he  "  was  shapen  in 
iniquity  and  in  sin  did  his  mother  conceive  him."  Let  him  see  all 
this,  and  you  will  soon  perceive,  that  he  feels  the  corresponding 
sense  of  danger,  and  sorrow,  and  grief,  and  hatred  of  sin.  For 
what  other  purpose  did  David  (Ps.  51.)  revert  to  the  fountain  of 
his  original  corruption  ]  Was  it  not  explicitly,  to  deepen  upon 
his  own  sorrowful  soul,  a  sense  of  shame  and  sorrow  for  sin] 
But,  there  is  another  impelling  motive — "  an  apprehension  of  the 
mercy  of  God  in  Christ."  Now,  1  defy  any  man,  to  have  a  right 
apprehension  of  the  mercy  of  God  in  "the  second  Adam,  unless 
he  also  sees  and  knows  something  of  the  relations  he  himself  sus- 
tains to  the  first  Adam,  and  the  direful  consequences  of  them. 
The  most  glorious  views  of  divine  truth  are  given  in  this  very 
connection.  Never,  until  we  see,  and  feel,  and  know  our  death 
in  the  one,  do  our  souls  burn  for  life  and  glory  through  the  other. 
Oh,  how  the  soul  of  the  pious  heart  kindles  at  the  contemplation. 

"  Lord,  I  am  vile,  conceived  in  sin  : 
And  born  unholy  and  unclean  ; 
Sprung  from  the  man  whose  guilty  fall, 
Corrupts  the  race  and  ruins  all." 

Well,  does  such  a  view  prepare  the  mind  for  the  expression  of 
shame,  as  in  hymn  26. 

"  Backward  with  humble  shame  I  look 
On  our  original,"  &c. 

Therefore,  secondly,     The  "grief  and  hatred  of  sin,  which,  in 
various  degrees  of  strength,  accompany   true   repentance,  are 


93 

highly  excited  by  a  consideration  of  our  native  depravity.  When 
we  look  at  the  rock  whence  we  are  hewn,  and  to  the  hole  of  the 
pit  whence  we  are  digged,  then  it  is  the  soul  sinks  in  sorrows  un- 
utterable, and  finds  relief  in  tears.  This  is  accordant  with  uni- 
versal Christian  experience.  Salutary  fears  moreover  result  from 
a  view  of  our  guilt — our  exposure  to  punishment  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin.  And  I  see  not  how  a  man  can  be  lifted  up  into  the 
high  joys  o^  forgiveness  through  the  second  Adam,  who  has  not 
been  plunged  toward  the  borders  of  despair  through  his  con- 
demnation in  the  first. 

Hence,  thirdly,  The  thing  itself— the  turning  unto  God  from 
sin — "  doth  turn  from  it  into  God." 

And,  fourthly,  The  concomitant  purposes  and  feelings — bent 
upon-  holy  obedience.  All  the  essentials  of  a  true  and  saving 
repentance  are  experienced  in  a  view  of  original  sin.  David's 
soul  was  kindled  by  it  into  a  deeper  fervour  of  self-abasement. 
Watts  failed  to  string  his  lofty  lyre,  until  he  drew  the  life  of  his 
humility  from  the  same  views:  and  kindled  the  fire  of  his  love  by 
turning  toward  the  second  Adam. 

Let  me  here  remark,  that  this  same  objection  was  urged  by 
Dr.  Taylor,  the  great  champion  of  Arminianism  ;  hence  we  may 
suppose  some  alliance  between  that  system  and  theirs  who  use 
the  objection  now.  Edwards,  Vol.  II.  p.  559.  "  Dr;  Taylor  urges 
that  sorrow  and  shame  are  only  for  personal  sin;  and  it  has  often 
been  urged,  that  repentance  can  be  for  no  other  sin.  To  which  I 
would  say,  that  the  use  of  words  is  very  arbitrary.  But  that  men's 
hearts  should  be  deeply  affected  with  grief  and  humiliation  before 
God,  for  the  pollution  and  guilt  which  they  bring  into  the  world 
with  them,  I  think  is  not  in  the  least  unreasonable.  Nor  is  it  a 
thing  strange  or  unheard  of,  that  men  should  be  ashamed  of 
things  done  by  others,  in  whom  they  are  nearly  concerned.  1  am 
sure  it  is  not  unscriptural ;  especially  when  they  are  looked  upon 
in  the  sight  of  God,  who  sees  the  disposition  of  their  hearts,  as 
fully  consenting  and  concurring."  Such  is  the  answer  of  the 
immortal  Edwards  to  this  old  query,  about  original  sin  :  And 
that  his  doctrine  "is  not  unscriptural,"  any  man  of  a  sanctified 
and  penitent  heart,  will  be  fully  satisfied,  if  he  will  read  the  22d 
Psalm,  and  listen  to  the  sighs  of  Gethsemaife,  and  the  groans  of 
Calvary.  Did  not  the  holy  soul  of  the  Saviour,  viewing  the  sins 
of  others, — the  original  guilt  and  pollution,  and  the  actual  corrup- 
tions of  his  own  dear  people,  turn  from  it  all  with  abhorrence  I 
Did  he  not  in  the  deep  heavings  of  his  sorrowful  soul,  weep  over 
the  obduracy  of  the  human  hearf?  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem  !  "Oh 
that  my  head  were  waters,  and  mine  eyes  a  fountain  of  tears,  that  I 
might  weep.day  and  night !"  "  Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup 
pass  from  me."  Thus  anguish  of  soul  in  view  of  the  sins  of  the 
people;  sorrow  for  their  obstinacy,  and  revulsion  of  heart  from 
sin,  as  seen  in  them,  agitated  the  holy  soul  of  our  holy  Redeemer. 
And  though  it  cannot  be  said  that  he  repented  in  the  full  sense  of 


94 

the  term,  yet  it  is  undeniable,  that  all  the  foregoing",  Christ  did  ex- 
perience, and  that  tliey  enter  into  the  common  notion  of  repentance. 
But  some  men  will  say,  "Repentance  is  remorse  of  conscience." 
I  deny  it.  The  catechism  alone  quoted  gives  the  true  idea.  But 
remorse  is  hell  on  earth,  and  its  full  import  will  be  known  only  in 
eternity.  Remorse  of  conscience  is  no  essential  part  of  saving 
repentance.  A  despairing  frame,  approaching  toward  remorse, 
there  may  be,  preceding  true  repentance,  but  it  is  not  essential, 
and  in  the  great  majority  of  true  conversions,  has  no  existence. 

9.  Mr.  Barnes'  ninth  objection  is,  that  this  doctrine  "  will 
greatly  embarrass  a  man's  ministry,  produce  ease  in  sin,  and  hinder 
the  prayers  of  the  gospel,  and  disgust  men  of  common  under- 
standing with  Christianity."  These  are  heavy  objections,  if. true. 
But  first,  it  is  the  doctrine  of  all  the  Reformed  churches,  as  the 
Biblical  Repertory  has  most  triumphantly  demonstrated.  Did  it 
embarrass  Luther  and  Calvin  and  Knox  and  Owen  ?  When  did 
the  church  see  such  men  before  or  since  ?  Whose  labours  were 
ever  more  blessed"?  Did  it  embarrass  Edwards ?  And  does  it 
embarrass  the  great  majority  of  sound  Presbyterians  at  this  day  ! ! 
Secondly,  I  have  shown  that  it  is  the  very  doctrine  to  make  men 
feel  the  greatness  of  their  sin.  But  the  opposite  system,  which 
makes  human  nature  not  quite  so  bad,  flatters  man's  abihties  and 
pampers  his  pride.  Thirdly,  the  truth  of  God  cannot  hinder  the 
progress  of  the  gospel.  Fourthly,  "  it  disgusts  men  of  common 
understanding  with  Christianity."  To  this  I  plead  guilty;  it  does 
60,  I  admit. 

Mr.  Barnes,  under  the  sixth  remark  on  the  next  charge,  ad- 
vances the  same  idea.  "  And  is  there  no  danger  that  men  will 
regard  the  system  which  proclaims  it  as  at  variance  with  all  their 
just  conceptions  of  a  righteous  government,  and  religion  as  op- 
posed to  the  common  sense  of  the  world  ]"  In  both  these  cases 
the  language  is  certainly  unguarded.  Are  we  then  bound  to 
square  God's  truth  "  to  the  common  sense  of  the  world  V  Must 
religion  be  made  palatable  to  the  world,  and  modelled  to  suit  the 
world's  conception  of  a  righteous  government?"  Are  we  bound 
to  dress  up  Christianity  that  she  may  not  "  disgust  men  of  com- 
mon understanding  3i'  "  Let  a  minister  proclaim  that  his  hearers 
are  one  with  Adam,  and  then  common  sense  will  revolt  at  it.'* 
So  it  will,  "The  world,  by  wisdom,  know  not  God" — "  common 
sense  will  revolt  at  it."  Yes,  the  common  sense  of  the  world  will ; 
but  the  common  sense  of  the  great  mass  of  Presbyterians  in  this 
country,  who  have  heard  this  doctrine  all  their  lives,  is  not  yet 
revolted  at  it.  "  The  infidel  will  smile."  Very  well,  let  him 
Bmile.  Tell  him  of  a  just  God,  a  coming  judgment  and  an  open- 
ing hell,  and  he  will  smile.  Tell  him  of  a  bleeding  Saviour,  and 
an  opening  heaven,  and  he  will  smile.  Preach  the  terrors  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  mercies  of  redeeming  love,  "  and  the  infidel  will 
emije."  What  then  ?  "  Is  the  offence  of  the  cross  ceased  ?"  Ah ! 
my  brotherj  tliere  are  juany  othcir  things,  besides  the  doctrine  of 


95 

our  sinning  "  in  Adam  and  falling  with  him  in  his  first  transgres- 
sion," which  "disgust  men  of  common  understanding  with  Chris- 
tianity," and  make  "the  infidel  smile." 

10.  Mr.  Barnes'  tenth  reason  for  rejecting  this  doctrine  is,  that 
other,  men  in  great  numbers,  have  done  it.  And  men,  too,  of  high 
standing.  And  he  quotes  Dr..  Woods,  of  Andover,  where  he  ob- 
jects to  the  imputation  "  of  any  sinful  disposition  or  act,!'  which 
has  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  our  doctrine,  and  is  wholly  irre- 
levent. 

Thus  I  have  gone  over  Mr.  Barnes'  ten  reasons  for  rejecting 
the  great  leading  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  His 
statement  of  it  is  clear,  and  his  rejection  explicit  and  full,  and 
frequently  repeated. 

The  only  other  form  of  doctrine  is  the  simple  statement  of  the 
facts.  This,  the  accused  says,  it  was  his  design  to  teach.  Now, 
as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  remark  hereafter  more  fully,  the  facts 
may  be  admitted  and  the  doctrines,  the  moral  connexions  and  re- 
lations of  them  denied. 


CHARGE  VII. 

Mr.  Barnes  denies  "  that  mankind  are  guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to 
punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam." 

Proof  1,  page  123.  "  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  they 
are  condemned  to  eternal  death,  or  held  to  be  guilty  of  his  sin, 
without  participation  of  their  own,  or  without  personal  sin,  any 
more  than  there  is  that  they  are  approved  by  the  work  of  Christ, 
or  held  to  be  personally  deserving,  without  embracing  his  offer, 
and  receiving  him  as  a  Saviour." 

Proof  2,  p.  127.  The  word  is  in  no  instance  used  to  express 
the  idea  of  imputing  that  to  one  which  belongs  to  another.  It  here 
either  means  that  this  was  bij  a  constitution  of  divine  appointment 
that  they  in  fact  became  sinners,  or  simply  declares  that  they  loere 
so  in  fact.  There  is  not  the  slightest  intimation  that  it  was  by 
imputation.  The  whole  scope  of  the  argument  is,  moreover, 
against  this;  for  the  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  not  that  they 
were  charged  with  the  sin  of  another,'but  that  they  were  in  fact 
sinners  themselves.  If  it  means  that  they  were  condemned  for 
his  act,  without  any  concurrence  of  their  own  will,  then  the  cor- 
respondent part  will  be  true,  that  all  are  constituted  righteous  in 
the  same  way.;  and  thus  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  will 
be  inevitable.  But  as  none  are  constituted  righteous  who  do  not 
voluntarily  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  of  mercy,  so  it  fol- 
lows that  those  who  are  condemned,  are  not  condemned  for  the 
sin  of  another  without  their  own  concurrence,  nor  unless  they 
personally  deserve  it. 

Sinners. — Transgressors;  those  who  deserve  to  be  punished. 
It  does  not  mean  those  who  are  condemned  for  the  sin  of  anoiher, 
but  those  who  are  violators  of  the  la^v  of  God.     All  who  are  con- 


96 

demned  are  sinners.  They  are  not  innocent  persons  condemned 
for  the  crime  of  another.  Men  may  be  involved  in  the  conse- 
quences of  the  sins  of  others  without  being  to  blame.  The  con- 
sequences of  the  crimes  of  a  murderer,  a  drunkard,  a  pirate,  may 
pass  over  from  them,  and  affect  thousands,  and  whelm  them  in 
ruin.     But  this  does  not  prove  that  they  are  blameworthy." 

Proofs,  p.  1*28.  "  Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain 
this.  The  most  common  has  been  that  Adam  was  the  represen- 
tative of  the  race  ;  that  he  was  a  covenant  head,  and  that  his  sin 
was  imputed  to  his  posterity,  and  that  they  were  held  liable  to 
punishment  for  it  as  if  they  had  committed  it  themselves.  But  to 
this  there  are  great  and  insuperable  objections.  *  *  *  (3.)  It  ex- 
plains nothmg.  The  difficulty  still  remains.  It  is  certainly  as 
difficult  to  see  bow,  in  a  just  administration,  the  sins  of  the  guilty 
should  be  charged  on  the  innocent,  as  to  contemplate  simply  the 
universal  fact,  that  the  conduct  of  one  man  may  involve  his  family 
in  the  consequences.  (4.)  It  adds  another  difficulty  to  the  sub- 
ject. It  not  only  explains  nothing,  removes  no  perplexity,  but  it 
compels  us  at  once  to  ask  ihe  question,  how  can  this  be  justl  How 
can  it  be  right  to  charge  the  sins  of  the  guilty  on  those  who  had 
no  participation  in  them]  How  could  millions  be  responsible  for 
the  sins  of  one  who  acted  long  before  they  had  an  existence,  and 
of  whose  act  they  had  no  consciousness,  and  in  which  they  had 
no  participation  1" 

Proof  1.  A  simple  reading  of  this  language  must  satisfy  every 
mind,  that  the  author  does  deny  men  to  be  condemned  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin — they  are  not  "held  to  be  guilty  of  his  sin" — 
"  without  personal  sin."  And  what  renders  it  unequivocal  is, 
that  he  uses  an  argument  to  prove  it,  viz.  if  men  are  held  to  be 
guilty  without  personal  sin  of  their  own,  then  men  would  also  be 
approved  by  the  work  of  Christ  without  embracing  his  offer.  The 
same  is  adduced  in  proof  second,  and  more  fully  stated:  "  But  as 
none  are  constituted  righteous  who  do  not  voluntarily  avail  tiiem- 
selves  of  the  provisions  of  mercy,  so  it  follows  that  those  who  are 
condemned,  are  not  condemned  for  the  sin  of  another  without 
their  own  concurrence,  nor  unless  they  personally  deserve  it." 
Condemnation  cannot  take  place  without  personal  sin — it  cannot 
take  place  on  account  of  Adam's  *&in.  Now  the  brother  must  ex- 
cuse me  for  repeating  here  the  argument  of  Pelagius.  "If 
Adam's  sin  hurt  those  who  were  not  guilty,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  profits  those  who  believe  not."  Milner,  chap.  II.  page  370. 
The  precise  argument  of  the  above  quotation.  But  the  argument 
is  more  specious  than  valid.  It  ought  to  be  fairly  balanced,  and 
would  stand  thus.  Personal  sin  is  necessary  to  condemnation, 
therefore  personal  righteousness  is  necessary  to  justification. 
Assuredly,  if  we  are  not  put  into  a  state  of  condemnation  by 
Adam's  sin,  we  are  not  put  into  a  state  of  justification  by  Christ's 
righteousness. 

Proofs.     Here  you  see  the  common  doctrine  of  our  standards 


97 

stated — "  they  were  held  liable  to  punishment  for  it,  [Adam's  sin,] 
as  if  they  had  committed  it  themselves."  This  he  denies.  "But 
to  tliis  there  are  great  and  insuperable  objections."  Need  I  pro- 
ceed any  farther  in  the  proof?  Surely  he  denies  that  men  are 
liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam. 

Confession,  chap.  VI.  J  3.  "  They  being  the  root  of  all  man- 
kind, the  guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin 
and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity,  descending 
from  them  by  ordinary  generation."  §  6.  "  Every  sin,  both  ori- 
ginal and  actual,  being  a  transgression  of  the  righteous  law  of 
God,  and  contrary  thereunto,  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt 
upon  the  sinner,  whereby  he  is  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God, 
&.C."  Lar.  Cat.  "  The  sinfulness  of  that  estate  whereinto  man 
fell,  consisteth  in  the  guilt  of  Adam's  first  sin." 

27.  "The  fall  brought  upon  mankind  the  loss  of  communion 
with  God,  his  displeasure  and  curse,  so  as  we  are  by  nature  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  bond  slaves  to  satan,  and  justly  liable  to  all  pun- 
ishments in  this  world  and  that  which  is  to  come."  Shor.  Cat. 
18,  19,  to  the  same  effect. 

Here,  by  guilt,  is  meant  liability  to  punishment.  "  The  guilt 
of  this  sin  was  imputed,"  and  thus  mankind  came  under  death 
and  corruption ;  they  were  surely  liable  to  the  punishment  of 
death,  when  they  actually  experienced  it.  Original  (as  well  as 
actual)  sin  "  doth  in  its  own  nature  bring  guilt  upon  the  sinner," 
and  by  this  guilt  he  is  "  bound  over  to  the  wrath  of  God."  The 
fall  (or  Adam's  sin,)  brought  upon  mankind  God's  curse,  so  as  by 
nature,  we  are  "justly  liable  to  all  punishments."  Here  the  lan- 
guage is  explicit.  It  cannot  be  more  sa  1.  Guilt  is  liability  to 
punishment.  2.  Mankind  are  made  guilty  by  the  fall,  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin.  3.  A  third  point  is  settled  here.  Punishment  is 
endurance  of  pain,  misery,  death,  as  an  expression  of  God's  dis- 
pleasure. In  Confession,  chap.  VI.  §  6.  By  guilt  "  he  is  bound 
over  to  the  wrath  of  God,  and  curse  of  his  law,  and  so  made  sub- 
ject to  death,  with  all  miseries  spiritual,  temporal,  and  eternal." 
In  Lar.  Cat.  §  27,  "  these  very  things  are  called  punishments,  to 
which  by  the  fall,  by  nature  mankind  are  justly  liable."  And 
§  2S,  "  The  punishments  of  sin  in  this  world  are  either  inward,  as 
blindness  of  mind,  a  reprobate  sense,"  &c.  Tims,  punishment  is 
subjection  to  evil,  to  death — suffering  death  as  justly  due  for  sin, 
or  on  account  of  sin.  Thus,  clearly,  the  term  punishment  is  ap- 
plied to  all  the  evils  we  endure  "  in  this  world  and  the  world  to 
come,"  including  native  depravity,  "blindness  of  mind,  a  repro- 
bate sense ;"  and  the  liability  to  these  proceeds  from  original  sin; 
this  "brings  the  guilt  upon  the  sinner,"  and  his  actual  sin  in- 
creases it.  The  doctrine  of  our  Confession  then  is,  that  all  man- 
kind are  justly  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  Adam's  sin — 
liable  to  suffer  under  the  claims  of  law — as  a  matter  of  justice ; 
for  the  language  is  ^^  justly  liable  to  a-11  punishments." 

Let  us  now  see  what  the  Bible  says.     Rom.  v.  12-19.     In  the 

9 


98 

twelfth  verse  the  ajx)btle  speaks  of  the  entrance  of  sin  into  the 
world  through  one  man,  Adam,  "  in  whom  all  have  sinned." 
Tiien  he  sus{)enda  the  comparison  he  had  begunj  as  is  his  frequent 
custom,  that  he  may  strengthen  his  position  incidentally,  as  it 
were,  brought  in,  viz.  "  in  whom  all  sinned."  Yet  this  position, 
apparently  incidental,  is  important  to  fill  up  his  subsequent  com- 
parison of  the  first  and  second  Adam.  He  therefore  proceeds  to 
prove,  that  all  sinned  in  the  one  man.  His  first  position  is,  that 
sin  was  in  the  world,  prior  to  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  law. 
His  second  point  is,  that  the  existence  of  sin  proves  the  existence 
of  a  law ;  for  sin  is  the  transgression  of  law,  and  imputation  of  sin 
ia  its  legal  charge  upon  an  individual ;  the  charging  of  sin  proves 
a  law.  His  third  point  is,  that  sin  was  imputed,  notwithstanding 
the  non-existence  of  the  Mosaic  law,  from  the  creation  until 
Moses.  This  position  he  supports  by  reference  to  a  general  and 
undeniable  fact,  viz.  that  death  was  righteously  inflicted,  reigned 
— it  was  not  the  domineering  of  lawless  power,  but  the  exercise 
oT lawful  authority — "  death  reigned.^''  But  now  death  hath  right 
of  dominion  only  from  the  law,  through  sin — "  the  strength  of  sin 
is  the  law,"  and  "the  sting  of  death  is  sin."  Sin  puts  the  law's 
power  into  the  hands  of  death.  Here,  then,  is  proof  that  a  law 
existed,  and  had  been  transgressed  ;  for  hence  death.  True,  men 
sinned,  and  therefore  they  ought  to  die.  Nay!  but  the  death  oc- 
curred in  cases  where  no  personal  sin  existed — they  had  not 
sinned  like  Adam,  who,  by  his  personal  acts,  broke  the  covenant 
immediately  of  himself,  and  who  stood  also  like  the  second  Adam, 
a  public  representative — "the  type  of  him  that  was  to  come." 
These,  of  whom  I  speak,  says  Paul,  had  sinned  some  other  way, 
as  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  they  died.  Their  death  proves 
them,  under  condemnation — their  condemnation  is  a  sentence  for 
violated  law — their  violation  of  law  could  not  be,  like  Adam's, 
their  own  personal  act.  What  then  1  Why  then  it  is  true  they 
sinned  in  him,  .and  fell  with  him — "  in  whom  all  sinned."  Now 
death  is  a  penal  evil,  therefore,  these  (infants,)  were  liable  to 
punishment  on  account  of  Adam's  sin.  The  apostle  then,  v.  15, 
16,  17,  illustrates  certain  points  in  which  the  comparison  he  is 
about  to  make  does  not  hold  between  the  type  and  the  anti-type. 
And  in  v.  18,  resumes  the  comparison,  and  perfects  it.  "There- 
fore, as  by  the  ofience  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift 
came  upon  all  men  to  justification  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's 
disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  so  by  the  obedience  of 
one  shall  many  be  made  righteous."  Here,  as  I  mean  not  to  give 
an  exposition  of  the  context^  it  niay  be  sufficient  to  remark, 

1.  The  comparison  dropped  in  the  12th  verse  is  resumed,  be- 
tween Adam  and  Christ.  As-^even  so ;  and  this  regards  the 
wanner  of  the  condemnation  and  justification  respectively,  i.  e. 
the  principle  of  law  and  right  is  the  same  in  both.  As — in  what 
manner  ]     How  !     Unquestionably  by  the  representative  charac- 


99 

ter — the  federal  headship  of  the  parties  respectively.  2.  "  The 
oftence" — the  fall  of  the  one,  is  the  ground  and  cause  of  the  sen- 
tence of  condemnation;  and  the  righteousness,  the  full  com- 
pliance with  law  of  the  other,  is  the  ground  and  cause  of  the  sen- 
tence of  justification.  Clearly,  then,  condemnation  is  through 
Adam's  sin;  but  condemnation  is  the  declaration  that  a  man  is 
liable  to  be  punished.  Men  are  therefore  guilty  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin.  3.  The  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  is  imputed  to  all  his  na- 
tural posterity,  not  because  they  are  his  natural  posterity,  (for 
they  become  such  in  consequence  of  their  moral  relation  to  him, 
in  as  much  as  the  moral  world  was  not  made  for  the  material,  but 
vice  versa,  the  material  for  the  moral,)  but  because  he  represented 
them  in  the  covenant  of  works ;  so  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is 
imputed  to  all  his  spiritual  seed,  and  because  he  represented  thera 
in  the  covenant  of  grace.  All  whom  Adam  represented  are  con- 
demned in  him;  all  whom  Christ  represented  are  justified  in  him. 
Universalism  may  take  what  advantages  here  the  truth  will  aflford 
it.  If  it  can  be  proved,  that  Christ  represented  all,  then  universal 
salvation,  of  course,  is  the  true  doctrine.  But  if  he  represented 
only  his  own  slieep,  for  whom  he  prays,  and  not  those  of  whom  he 
says,  "  I  pray  not  for  the  world,"  then  old  fashioned  Calvinism 
has  no  difficulties  here. 

Rom.  vi.  23.  "  The  wages  of  sin" — that  which  is  justly  due  to 
it — "  is  death.'*  But — "  in  Adam  all  die,"  therefore  in  him  have 
all  earned  the  wages  of  sin,  and  are  liable  to  punishment  on  ac- 
count of  his  sin. 

Eph.  iL  3.  "  — And  were  by  nature  children  of  wrath." — By 
nature,  that  is,  in  their  natural  condition,  before  any  gracious 
change  had  been  made  on  them  by  the  Spirit  of  holiness — they 
were  children  of  wrath — subject  to  God's  wrath — under  condem- 
nation— liable  to  punishment  for  the  sin  of  nature.  But  against 
this  it  is  objected,  that  nature  means  disposition,  temper,  charac- 
teristic feeling.  Thus  we  speak  of  good  nature,  meaning  kindly 
disposition.  To  this  I  reply,  that  a  case  in  which  such  a  construc- 
tion is  required,  cannot  be  pointed  out  in  the  writings  of  Paul. 
He  uses  the  term  eleven  times;  seven  in  this  epistle :  chap.  i.  26. 
— "  even  their  women  did  change  their  natural  use  into  that  which 
is  contrary  to — disposition  !  no,  but  to  the  proper  laws  of  their 
being.  Chap.  ii.  14, — '*  do  by  nature — in  their  natural  condition 
— the  things,"  &c.  V,  27, — ••  shall  not  uncircumcision  which  is 
by  nature — naturaV  IX.  21, — "  spared  not  the  natural  branches 
[branches  according  to  nature,  not  according  to  their  temper  or 
disposition :  it  occurs  twice  more  in  the  same  verse.]  Gal.  ii.  15 
— "  we  who  are  Jews  by  nature" — not  by  temper  and  disposition, 
but  naturally  ;  by  birth.  IV.  8, — "  which  by  nature  are  no  gods." 
So  here  we  were  children  [ones  begotten]  of  wrath  by  birth — 
naturally.  Bretschneider  gives  it — '*1.  Vie  genetrix.  2.  procrea- 
tio,  nativitas,  generatio," 


iOO 

Permit  me  to  present  one  more  argument  on  this  subject.  You 
will  keep  your  eye  upon  the  precise  point  in  dispute.  It  is  the 
question  whether  men  are  liable  to  punishment  lor  Adam's  sin — 
whether  they  are  guilty  and  exposed  to  wrath  on  account  of  his 
first  transgression  passing  over  in  its  legal  effects  upon  them. 
Mine  is  the  affirmative,  brother  Barnes's  the  negative.  The  ar- 
gument to  which  1  allude  was  pressed,  many  centuries  ago,  on 
the  consideration  of  Pelagius,  who  said,  "Therefore  we  conclude 
that  the  triune  God  should  be  adored  as  most  just,  and  it  has  been 
made  to  appear  most  irrefragably,  that  the  sin  of  another  never 
can  be  imputed  to  little  children."  And  again,  "  Hence  that  is 
ievident,  which  we  defend  as  most  reasonable,  that  no  one  is  born 
in  sin,  and  that  God  never  judges  men  to  be  guilty  on  account  of 
his  birth."  Bib.  Rep.  ii.  p.  103.  Here  is  the  precise  point  now 
in  controversy,  and  that  profound  scholar  was  bearded  with  the 
argument  I  am  about  to  present;  but  he  never  met  it  fairly.  It 
has  oflen  been  presented  since,  and  has  never  been  met.  I  could 
most  earnestly  wish  it  might  noio  be  met;  but  I  fear  it  will  not 
for  the  best  of  all  reasons.  I  press  it,  however,  upon  brother 
Barnes's  consideration,  and  entreat  his  candid  attention  to  it.  It 
is  the  argument  from  the  state  of  infants.  It  always  appeared  to 
me  unanswerable ;  but  never,  until  I  was  called  to  perform  the 
last  duties  to  the  loveliest  babe  [I  speak  as  a  father,  you  can  par- 
don my  weakness]  the  loveliest  babe  these  eyes  ever  beheld,  did 
I  see  and  feel  and  know  and  appreciate  the  force  of  the  argument 
and  the  sweetness  of  the  doctrine  it  establishes.  These  knees, 
Mr.  Moderator,  sustained  that  lovely  form — these  eyes  watched 
every  heaving  emotion  of  that  labouring  bosom,  and  every  groan 
and  shriek  of  writhing  nature  pierced  this  aching  heart — as  I 
doubt  not  it  pierced  the  heart  of  God  and  moved  the  sympathies  of 
Him  who  groaned  in  Gethsemane,  and  shrieked  on  the  cross  of 
Calvary.  The  physician,  whose  skill  God  would  bafHe,  stood 
watching  with  anxious  heart,  the  last,  last  pulsations  of  ebbing 
life.  I  observed — "Doctor,  men  may  speculate  as  they  please 
alaout  original  sin  and  the  liability  of  infants  to  penal  sufiering  on 
account  of  Adam's  sin  ;  but  if  no  sin  lies  upon  this  child  in  any 
sense,  what  kind  of  a  God  have  we]  VV^here  is  his  justice,  if 
this  sweet  babe  is  not  suffering  for  the  sin  of  another?  Oh  !  if  I 
did  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  I  would  call  God  a 
monster  of  cruelty  and  turn  atheist.  jEither  a  just  sentence  of 
law  requires  all  this,  or  there  is  no  God." 

*'  But  besides,"  said  I,  "  this  child  has  never  committed  any  sin 
of  its  own  personally — it  can  have  no  sin  upon  it  as  a  legal  cause 
of  this  agony,  but  that  of  its  first  representative  Adam ;  what  a 
dreadful  thing  sin  must  be,  which,  six  thousand  years  after  its 
perpetration,  presents  us  with  such  appalling  results  as  this  from 
one  single  act  7  And  what  must  our  condition  be,  who  have  added 
innumerable  actual  transgression  to  the  sins  of  our  nature,  unless 
we  believe  and  repent]     But  oh!  how  eweet  the  doctrine!     My 


101 

dear  babe  is  dying-,  indeed,  by  virtue  of  its  legal  relation  to  th« 
first  Adam;  but  thanks  to  my  heavenly  Father,  he  shall  live  tor 
ever  by  virtue  of  his  legal  relation  to  the  Lord  my  Redeemer." 

Yes,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  infants  do  not  die  in  Adam,  they  are 
not  made  alive  in  Christ.  If  they  are  not  condemned  and  exposed 
to  God's  wrath  by  the  sin  of  the  former,  they  cannot  be  pardoned, 
justified  and  blessed  for  ever  by  the  rigrhteousness  of  the  latter] 
Look  at  the  facts  of  the  case.  Can  infants  be  saved  if  they  are 
not  losti  Can  they  be  redeemed,  if  they  were  not  slaves,  sold 
under  sin  ?  Can  they  be  pardoned  if  they  have  not  been  con- 
demned! Pardon  is  the  remission  of  sin — the  passing  by  a  sinner 
condemned — the  withholding  punishment  from  him  to  whom  it 
was  justly  due.  Pardon  is  bought  with  Jesus'  blood.  Can  the 
infant  be  washed  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb,  if  it  has  not  been  pol- 
luted ?  Clearly,  then,  the  salvation  of  infants  is  out  of  the  quep- 
tion,  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  of  their  being  guilty  on 
account  of  Adam's  sin  imputed.  If,  therefore,  this  doctrine  be 
not  true,  then  it  will  follow,  that  infants  cannot  be  pardoned ; 
they  cannot  be  washed  from  their  sins  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb, 
(for  they  have  no  sin) — they  cannot  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  for  they  were  never  dead  in  sin — they  cannot,  by  conse- 
quence, "  sing  a  new  song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the 
book,  and  to  open  the  seals  thereof:  for  thou  wast  slain  and  hast 
redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood."  Rev.  v.  9.  Oh  no !  these 
lovely  strangers,  who  just  visit  earth  to  peep  in  upon  its  follies, 
taste  a  little  of  its  joys,  and  drink  deeply  of  its  sorrows  in  no 
sense  justly  due  to  them,  turn  away  and  pass  into  another  heaven 
from  their  parents.  Not  redeemed  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  they  can 
not  thank  redeeming  love.  No  golden  harp  in  its  praise  can  they  for 
themselves  hold — no  lofty  note,  no  loud  anthem  shall  swell  from 
infant  tongue  and  from  parental  lip.  Can  this  beT  Who  that  has 
closed  in  death  the  eyes  of  lovely  infancy,  can  bear  to  behold  such 
dissevered  bonds'?  Who,  that  has  sealed  the  prattling  tongue  in 
the  long,  long  silence  of  the  grave,  can  endure  the  thought  that 
that  tongue  shall  never  unite  with  his  own  in  singing  the  song  of 
Moses  and  the  Lamb?  Ah  no  !  Moderator.  The  heart  clings  to 
the  truth  when  the  erring  head  would  part  from  it.  Yes,  our 
little  ones  too  will  obey  the  "voice  which  comes  out  of  the  throne, 
saying.  Praise  out  God,  all  ye  his  servants,  and  ye  that  fear  him, 
both  small  and  great."  They,  too,  shall  be  "  arrayed  in  fine  linen, 
clean  and  white,"  and  with  us  shall  sit  down  at  "  the  marriage 
supper  of  the  Lamb." 

Besides,  on  what  other  gi-ound  can  the  baptism  of  infants  be 
accounted  fori  This  argument  is  alhlded  to  in  the  admirable 
History  of  Pelagianism,  Bib.  Rep.  ii.  100.  "So  also  the  council 
of  Milvium,  or  rather  of  Carthage,  denounced  such  as  denied  that 
infants  should  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  original  sin.  Can. 
17.  "  For  in  no  other  sense  can  that  be  understood  which  was 
spoken  by  the  apostle — that  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 

9* 


102 

world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and  so  death  hath  passed  upon  all  men, 
in  whom  all  have  sinned  [so  it  is  translated] — than  in  that  adopt- 
ed by  the  universal  church,  every  where  ditiused.  For  by  reason 
of  this  rule  of  laitii,  even  infants,  who  were  never  capable  of 
committing  any  sin  themselves,  are  nevertheless  baptized  accord- 
ing- to  truth  for  the  remission  of  sins:  so  that  the  pollution  con- 
tracted by  them  in  their  birth  might  be  cleansed  by  their  regene- 
ration." 

But  that  which  was  thought  to  give  peculiar  force  to  this  argu- 
ment was,  that  Celestius  himself,  in  a  book  which  he  edited  at 
Rome,  was  constrained  to  confess,  "  that  infants  are  baptized  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  according  to  the  rule  of  the  universal  church, 
and  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel."  It  seems,  then, 
that  from  this  argument  the  Pelagians  were  never  able  to  extri- 
cate themselves."  P.  107,  Vincentius  Lyra  asks,  "  Who,  before 
Celestius,  that  monstrous  disciple  of  Pelagius,  ever  denied  that 
the  whole  human  race  was  held  guilty  of  Adam's  sinT'  Need  I, 
Mr.  Moderator,  ask  who  after  him  denied  it]  P.  110.  "Hilary 
ex}tresses  their  [the  Pelagians']  opinion  thus,  'That  an  infant 
dying  unbaptized  cannot  justly  perish,  since  it  is  born  without 
sin.'  And  Augustine  describes  it  in  these  words:  'Nor  do  little 
children  need  the  grace  of  the  Saviour,  by  which,  through  bap- 
tism, they  may  be  delivered  from  perdition,  because  they  have 
contracted  no  guilt  from  their  connexion  with  Adam."  The  doc- 
trine of  the  Pelagians  on  this  point  was,  that  infants  were  not 
guilty — that  is,  neither  polluted  nor  liable  to  punishment  on  ac- 
count of  Adam's  sin  ;  and  yet  they  held — absurdly  enough,  just  as 
those  in  our  day  who  deny  the  same  doctrine — that  they  ought  to 
he  baptized. 

Against  this  doctrine  Richard  Baxter  directed  his  mighty  pen. 
Works,  vol.  xiii.  91,  &c.  "  You  cannot,"  says  he,  *'  exempt  in- 
fants themselves  from  sin  and  misery  without  exempting  them 
from  Christ  the  Redeemer,  and  the  remedy."  He  then  pours 
forth  more  than  half  a  page  of  texts,  and  proceeds:  "  If  infants 
have  no  s»i  and  misery,  then  they  are  none  of  the  body,  the 
xhurch,  which  Christ  loved  and  gave  himself  for,  that  he  might 
cleanse  it."  You  will  observe  here  specifically  he  fastena  down 
sin  as  well  as  misery  upon  infants,  and  then  he  mentions  the 
guilt  and  tliepunishment  of  sin  in  the  case  of  infants.  "But  what 
need  we  further  proof  when  we  have  the  common  experience  of  all 
the  world  ?  Would  any  man  that  is  born  of  a  woman,  without 
exception,  so  early  manifest  sin  in  the  life,  if  there  were  no  cor- 
rupt disposition  at  the  heart  1"  In  this  brother  Barnes  and  others 
agree  with  him;  not  in  the  next  sentence:  "And  would  all  man- 
kind, without  exception,  taste  of  the  punishment  of  sin,  if  they 
had  no  participation  of  sin,  if  they  had  no  participation  of  the 
guiltl  "Death  is  the  wages  of  sin ;  and  by  sin  death  entered 
into  the  world,  and  it  passeth  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sin- 
ned." Rom.  v.  12.  Infants  have  sickness,  and  torments,  and  death, 
which  are  the  fruits  of  sin.     And  were  they  not  presented  to 


103 

Christ  as  a  Saviour,  when  he  took  them  in  his  arms  and  blessed 
thein,  and  said,  "of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  1"     Certainly 
none  that  never  were  guilty,  nor  miserable,  are  capable  of  a  place 
in  the  kingdom  of  the  Mediator.     For  to  what  end  should  he  me- 
diate for  them  1  or  how  should  he  redeem  them  that  need  not  a 
redemption  ?  or  how  should  he  reconcile  them  to  God,  that  never 
were  at  enmity  with  him  ?  or  how  can  he  wash  them  that  were 
never  unclean  ?  when  the  whole  have  no  need  of  the  physician." 
Matt.  ix.  12.     He  "  came  to  seek  and  save  that  which  was  lost." 
Luke  xix.  10.  and  to  save  "  the  people  from  their  sins."  Matt  i. 
21.     They  are  none  of  his  saved  people  therefore,  that  had  no 
sin.     He  came  to  "  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law."  Gal. 
iv.  5.     But  it  is  most  certain  that  infants  were  under  the  law,  as 
well  as  the  adult:  and  they  were  a  part  of  "his  people  Israel, 
whom  he  visited  and  redeemed."  Luke  i.  68.     If  even  they  be 
admitted  into  glory,  they  must  praise  him  that  redeemed  them 
by  his  blood."  Rev.  v.  9.     P.  94.  "  Infants  then,  are  sinners,  or 
none  of  those  that  he  came  to  save.     Christ  hath  made  no  man 
righteous  by  his  obedience,  but  such  as  Adam  made  sinners  by 
his  disobedience."— ^"  There  is  no  regeneration,  or  renovation  but 
from  sin."     P.  95.  "  If  they  think  that  any  infants  are  saved,  it  is 
either  by  covenant,  or  without ;  there  is  some  promise  for  it,  or 
there  is  none. — 96.  He  concludes,  "By  the  fulness  of  this  evidence, 
it  is  easy  to  see,  that  infants  and  all  mankind  are  sinners,  and 
therefore  have  need   of  a    Redeemer."     Richard  Baxter  then 
hath  fully  taught,  1.  That  infants  are  polluted  and  need  cleansing 
— 2.  Are  dead  spiritually,  and  need  regeneration.     3.  Are  guilty, 
liable  to,  and  do  experience  punishment.     4.  Punishment  is  the 
endurance  of"  sickness  and  torments  and  death,"  due  not  for  their 
own  but  Adam's  sin.     Against  this  argument  I  predict  no  man 
will  lift  up  his  voice.     And  here  I  might  close  the  discussion  of 
this  VII  charge,  in  the  confidence  that  the  proof  is  full  and  clear, 
that  Mr.  Barnes  denies  men  to  be  guilty  on  account  of  Adam's 
sin.     However,  as  it  would  be  uncourteous  not  to  notice  his  argu- 
ment, I  must  remark, 

1.  I  apprehend  the  difference  lies  in  the  things  not  in  the  terms, 
and  therefore  it  is  not  an  idle  logomachy.  I  have  endeavoured,  in 
stating  the  things  deemed  errors,  to  express  them  in  terms  plain 
and  simple;  and  here,  to  avoid  ambiguity  in  the  term  guilt,  I 
have  defined  it  "  liability  to  punishment,"  and  I  hope  the  preced- 
ing remarks  have  made  the  meaning  clear  and  the  truth  evident. 
When  it  is  said,  mankind  are  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of 
Adam's  sin,  I  cannot  imagine  how  any  man  should  suppose  that 
the  certainty  of  their  sinning,  when  they  should  become  moral 
agents,  was  meant — or  that  they  came  into  the  world  with  a  he- 
reditary depravity,  or  propensity  of  liability  to  sin  ;  or  that. they 
will  suffer  and  experience  pain  and  death  merely  "  in  consequence 
of  that  connexion."  The  dumb  briiies  experience  the  same  evils 
as  a  consequence  of  Adam's  sin.     Nor  yet  is  the  meaning,  that 


104 

they  are  suitable  for  the  moral  Governor  of  the  universe  to  inflict 
in  order  to  express  his  abhorrence  for  sin."  But  the  meaninjif  is 
plain,  that  pain  and  death,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eterniil,  are 
justly  and  legally  awarded  to  every  soul  of  man  by  the  rii^hteous 
God — that  thus  they  are  sinners  condemned,  and  therefore  liable 
to  have  this  sentence  executed  upon  them  ;  and  all  this  on  account 
of  Adam's  sin  imputed,  that  is,  charged  in  law  and  right  upon 
them.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  Barnes  maintains  that  the  evils  in- 
cident to  infant  humanity  (and  tl>us  to  all  the  race,  for  they  all 
are  one  time  infants)  are  not  penal  at  all ;  do  not  result  from  mo- 
ral or  legal  connexion  with  Adam ;  but  are  sinular  only  to  the 
evils  incident  to  a  drunkard's  children  from  his  conduct — to  a  sui- 
cidi'V,  to  a  trailer's,  to  Adam's.  All  his  reasoning  here  seems  to 
me  t.»  vest  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  legal  relations  are  the  same. 
Now  ihis  hypothesis  I  take  to  be  gratuitous  and  false,  and  also 
dangerous.  It  is  gratuitous  and  false,  (a)  because  the  death  of 
Achan's  children  could  not  follow  as  a  legal  result  of  his  crime 
simply.  He  was  not  their  legal  representative  in  that  act  of  sin; 
his  relation  as  parent  did  not  constitute  him  such,  and  his  act 
alone  could  not  in  justice  and  right  bring  upon  them  this  fearful 
punishment.  This  would  be  to  set  the  children's  teeth  on  edge, 
because  the  father  had  eaten  sour  grapes.  "  Why  do  you  charge 
this  as  a  principle  of  the  divine  administration,  that  the  children 
are  punished  for  the  sins  of  their  parents  ?"  Mr.  Barnes  says  that 
to  deny  this  principle  is  the  object  of  the  eighteenth  chapter  of 
Ezekiel.  Here  we  agree,  for  1  deny  that  the  sin  of  Achan  was 
\,\\Q  sole  or  true  ground  of  his  children's  death.  And  I  deny  it 
simply  on  the  principle,  that  evils  upon  a  moral  being  can  follow, 
in  a  perfect  government,  only  the  transgression  of  law :  and  this 
transgression  must  be  committed  either  by  the  individual  or  by  one 
rightfully  authorised  to  act  for  him.  But  Achan  was  not  so  ap- 
pointed, (the  drunkard,  the  suicide,  the  traitor,  were  not  so  ap- 
pointed, except  measurably  as  the  representatives  of  property,) 
and  therefore  his  sin  could  not  be  the  sole,  true  and  legal  pro- 
curing cause  of  their  death :  at  the  very  most  it  was  the  occasion 
only,  (b)  Because  if  Achan's  sin  was  the  sole  cause  of  their  death, 
they  being  yet  infants,  their  execution  was  itself  an  infinitely 
greater  offence  against  the  laws  of  right,  than  Achan's  sin.  He 
was  not  their  representative  in  this  matter,  and  their  lives  could 
not  justly  be  the  forfeit  of  his  act.  On  the  contrary,  (c)  they  had 
been  born  under  sentence  of  condemnation — they  were  guilty  of 
death  by  the  transgression  of  Adam,  who  did  represent  them  by 
riij^/tf  of  God's  appointment,  and  the  judgment  being  by  one  to 
condemnation,  they  were  before  the  act  of  their  father,  under 
sentence  of  death — children  of  wrath,  and  this  was  the  only,  true, 
real  moral  or  legal  cause  of  their  death.  The  offence  of  Achan 
was  but  the  occasion,  and  "  all  Israel  stoned  them  with  stones," 
and  became  their  executioners.  So  exactly  with  the  drunkard, 
and  traitor,  &lc.     Their  children  suffer.     There  is  an  immediate 


105 

instrumental  cause,  viz,  their  destitution  of  food,  raiment,  Slc, 
There  is  a  mediate  cause  or  agent  instrumental,  viz.  the  drunken 
parent.  There  is  an  original  essential  procuring  moral  cause,  viz. 
their  first  lather's  first  sin. 

The  hypothesis  on  which  Mr.  Barnes'  reasoning  rests,  viz.  that 
the  relations  between  Achan,  the  drunkard,  &c.  are  the  same  as 
between  Adam  and  his  posterity,  is  dangerous,  (a)  It  strikes  at 
the  foundation  of  all  moral  government ;  for  it  makes  God  (and 
human  governors,)  inflict  pain  and  wo  and  death,  without  a 
ground  in  right  and  law  for  such  infliction.  The  infant  of  Achan 
dies  for  his  father's  sin,  without  any  Jwsf  condemnation — the  law 
does  not  look  upon  the  child  as  guilty,  as  liable  to  punishment, 
and  yet  it  dies !  Is  not  this  unjust  1  So,  says  Mr.  Barnes,  Adam's 
infant  posterity  sufler  on  just  the  same  principle.  They  are  not 
guilty — not  liable  to  punishment — not  under  sentence  of  law— not 
condemned  to  penal  suffering — and  yet  they  suffer  death  1  Is  not 
this  unjust ?  Is  not  this  the  definition  of  tyranny"?  (b)  It  leads 
to  a  subversion  of  the  gospel ;  for  if  no  other  relation  exist  be- 
tween Adam  and  his  posterity  than  between  Achan  and  his,  then 
neither  does  any  other  relation  exist  between  Christ  and  his  peo- 
ple, (c)  This  principle  makes  the  physical  or  mere  animal  con- 
nexion the  only  basis  and  ground  of  moral  or  legal  treatment ;  or 
in  other  words,  the  moral  world  is  adapted  to  the  material,  and 
not  the  material  to  the  moral.     Matter  is  superior  to  mind. 

But  we  are  told  this  treatment  of  infants,  &.c.  is  designed  to 
display  the  abhorrence  of  the  moral  governor  against  sin.  Now, 
I  ask  how?  If  they  are  not  guilty  because  of  Achan's  off*ence — 
if  they  are  not  under  sentence  of  law  declaring  them  justly  liable 
to  punishment,  as  is  affirmed,  how  can  their  suffering  death  ex- 
hibit the  abhorrence  of  government  to  sin  ]  Can  the  sufferings  of 
innocence — for  if  they  are  not  guilty,  and  Mr.  Barnes  says  they 
are  not,  they  must  be  innocent — can  the  sufferings  of  innocence 
display  hatred  against  sin  ! 

2.  We  must  add  something  about  mere  terms — the  logomachy : 
and  a  poor  business  it  is.  Mr.  Barnes  contends  that  guilt  always 
implies  personal  crirninality,  meaning,  that  the  person  himself 
committed  the  crime  :  and  that  punishment  means  suffering  pe- 
nalty for  personal  acts.  And  (1)  he  quotes  Webster,  but  only  so 
far  as  suits  his  object.  Let  me  quote  him  to  suit  mine.  "  A 
crime  denotes  an  offence  or  violation  of  public  law."  Now,  it  is 
in  reference  only  to  public  law  that  we  speak.  "  Criminal — that 
violates  public  law,  divine  or  human."  "  Criminality — a  violation 
of  law."  "  Guilt — criminality  in  a  civil  or  political  view;  expo- 
sure to  forfeiture  or  other  penalty."  "  Punishment — any  pain  or 
suffering  inflicted  on  a  person  for  a  crime  or  offence,  by  the 
authority  to  which  the  offender  is  subject,  either  by  the  constitu- 
tion of  God  or  civil  society."  The  truth  is,  that  Webster,  in  the 
definitions  of  crime  and  guilt,  distiaguishes  between  the  mrtral 
and  the  civil  or  political  application.     Mr.  Barnes  has  improperly 


106 

turned  his  oye  upon  the  former  ;  for  it  is  manifest,  that  our  con- 
cern is  with  legal  relations,  and  not  with  moral  character.  Now, 
*'  criminality  is  a  violation  of  law,"  and  "  guilt  is  criminality  in  a 
civil  or  political  view,  exposure  to  forfeiture  or  other  jjeiialty.''^ 
*•  Guilt,  therefore,  implies  both  criminality,"  "  violation  of  law," 
"and  liableness  to  punishment,"  to  "any  pain  or  suffering  in- 
flicted on  a  person  for  a  crime,  or  violation  of  public  law."  He 
does  not  say,  that  tiie  criminality,  or  violation  of  law,  by  which  a 
man  is  guilty  or  exposed  to  fori'eiture  or  other  penalty,  and  so 
endures  punishment,  or  any  pain  or  suffering  inflicted — he  does 
not  say,  the  violation  of  law  must  be  his  own  personal  act,  in  or- 
der to  his  being  exposed  to  the  forfeiture.  The  definitions  appli- 
cable to  the  present  case,  are  precisely  such  as  I  could  desire. 
Adam  violated  public  law,  divine;  this  exposed  him  and  his  pos- 
terity to  forfeiture  of  life;  they  became  guilty  ;  pain  or  suffering 
is  inflicted  on  them;  they  are  punished. 

(2.)  The  second  appeal  is  to  the  law  books ;  and  here  I  confess 
my  learning  runs  short;  the  books  are  not  within  my  reach  just 
now.  Brother  Barnes  says  "  a  jury  or  court  never  think  of  sepa- 
rating the  idea  of  personal  offence,  or  crime,  from  their  idea  of 
punishment^  Whether  this  remark  be  true  or  not,  he  has  utterly 
failed  to  prove  it  true.  I  think  it  is  about  half  true;  in  certain 
departments  of  their  proceedings,  they  do  not  make  the  distinc- 
tion, and  in  others  they  do.  The  latter  first.  In  all  cases  where  tiie 
"  forfeiture,"  or  thing  itself  awarded  as  that  to  which  the  person 
is  liable,  or  by  which  he  is  bound,  lies  properly  and  really  within 
the  power  of  human  law,  the  award  may  fall  upon  a  person,  and 
he  endure  the  forfeiture,  who  did  not  perform  the  act.  Thus  in 
the  whole  business  of  suretyships  and  co-partnerships,  the  courts 
frequently  find  a  verdict  against  a  man,  and  hold  him  bound  in 
law  by  the  forfeiture,  although  he  did  not  personally  perform  the 
act  The  silent  partner  of  a  firm  is  held  responsible  {reus, 
guilty,)  in  law  for  the  act  of  another.  But  where  the  "  forfeiture" 
relates  to  life,  where  death  or  pains  leading  to  death  are  the  mat- 
ter of  the  "  forfeiture,"  the  court  make  no  distinction,  because 
no  man  has  power  over  his  own  life,  or  over  another's ;  no  man  can 
rightly  expose  himself  by  his  own  act,  or  by  another's,  to  forfei- 
ture of  limb  or  life.  And  therefore,  no  jury  or  court  can  rightly 
admit  such  forfeiture,  and  hold  a  man  guilty,  i.  e.  liable  to  penal 
evil  for  another's  act.  But  what  man  has  no  right  to  do,  because 
he  has  not  power  over  life,  God  has  done  in  appointing  his  own 
Son  to  die  for  the  sin  of  others.  Whether,  therefore,  the  term 
punishment  is  used  in  human  courts  to  mean  the  suffering  of  evil 
on  account  of  the  sin  oF  another,  is  a  matter  of  indifference  in  this 
question.  Still,  however,  brother  Barnes  has  adduced  no  evidence 
to  disprove  it.  For  (a)  Blackstone  defines  punishment  to  be,  "  the 
right  of  the  temporal  legislator  to  inflict  discretionary  penalties 
for  crimes  and  misdemeanor s^  Does  he  say  for  crimes  only  of 
the  persons  punished  ?     Or  may  such  relations  exist  between  two 


107 

persons,  that  one  may  suffer  pains  and  forfeitures  for  another's 
misdemeanor )  Besides,  Blackstone's  definition  is  limited  to  "the 
temporal  legislator,"  and  we  are  speaking  of  tlie  rights  of  the 
eternal  legislator ;  and,  besides,  the  extreme  inaccuracy  of  his 
definition  proves  the  truth  of  Coleridge's  remark,  that  he  lived 
and  wrote  in  a  dark  and  imperfect  state  of  legal  knowledge.  If 
accurately  quoted,  Blackstone  says,  "  punishment  is  the  right  of 
the  temporal  legislator,"  &c.,  which  is  manifestly  not  true. 
"  Punishment  is  not  the  right  of  a  legislator,"  nor  is  it  the  exer- 
cise of  such  a  right."  It  is  the  forfeiture  inflicted — the  pain  en- 
dured under  sanction  of  law — and  the  ground  of  it  is  violation  of 
law.  Coke's  maxim  of  law  is  true  or  false,  just  according  to  its 
application.  If  he  meant  that  such  relations  cannot  exist  as  shall 
bring  penal  evil  upon  one  man  for  another's  sin,  (as  I  suppose  he 
did  not,)  it  is  not  true.  But  brother  Barnes'  chief  dependence  is 
upon  Grotius — and  for  it  I  am  sincerely  sorry — because  it  lays  me 
under  the  necessity  of  making  statements,  which  will  be  called 
the  argumentum  ad  invidiam.  And  (a)  Grotius,  though  learned, 
was  very  unsound  as  a  theologian.  Owen  on  Satisfaction, 
Works,  vol.  IX.  p.  74,  293,  has  proved  that  Grotius  is  at  least  a 
semi-Socinian,  although  he  wrote  against  Socinus.  In  his  work 
"/>e  Satisfactione  Christi,'''  on  atonement,  Grotius  had  taught, 
as  Owen  shows,  the  correct  doctrine  of  Christ's  suffering  the 
legal  consequences  of  our  sin — the  punishment;  but  afterwards, 
(having  read  Crellius,)  he  rejects  his  former  interpretations,  and 
in  his  annotations  falls  in  with  Socinus  and  Crellius  in  nearly  all 
their  interpretations  of  the  proof  texts  of  the  doctrine  of  atone- 
ment. "The  substance  of  his  annotations  on  those  places,"  says 
Owen,  "being  taken  out  of  Socinus,  Crellius,  and  some  others  of 
that  party."— p.  301.  Accordingly,  every  one  knows  the  fact, 
that  Grotius  is  claimed  and  gloried  over  by  the  modern  Unita- 
rians, as  their  most  illustrious  champion.  You  will  be  able  to 
appreciate  the  authority  of  Grotius  on  a  point  where  the  essence 
of  atonement  is  concerned,  when  you  consider  that  he  falls  in 
with  the  infidel  Jews  in  their  exposition  of  the  fifty-third  chapter 
of  Isaiah,  in  application  to  Jeremiah  the  prophet  and  the  afflic- 
tions that  befel  him.  For  example,  v.  6,  "  All  we,  like  sheep, 
have  gone  astray,"  &c.  Grotius  interprets,  "  We  have  all  erred 
from  the  days  of  Manasseh,  some  following  some  idols,  others 
others;  and  God  permitted  that  he  [Jeremiah,]  by  our  grievous 
crimes,  should  suffer  most  unworthy  things."  On  v.  7,  "  And  as 
a  lamb,"  ("  wherewith,"  says  Grotius,  "  Jeremiah  compares  him- 
self") Chap.  xi.  18.  In  v.  8,  the  phrase  "  for  the  transgression  of 
my  people  was  he  smitten,"  he  explains  thus,  "  for  the  wickedness 
of  my  people  I  have  stricken  him,  [Jeremiah,}  in  the  Hebrew  it 
is,  *  stroke  it  on  him,'  that  is,  befel  him,  through  the  great  error 
and  fault  of  the  people,  as  is  before  said." 

Now  to  this  very  transaction,  Owen  applies  the  term  punish- 
ment, as  do  almost  all  the  world  of  Christians.     My  object  in  addu- 


108 

cing  these  passages  is,  to  show  the  reason  Grotius  had  for  main- 
tain incr  that  the  term  punishment,  poena,  is  applicable  only  to 
suffering"  for  jjersonal  sin.  For  if  that  be  true,  then  Christ  did  not 
and  could  not  possibly  suffer  punishment  at  all — could  never  en- 
dure penal  evil,  never  having  personally  offended.  Thus  conve- 
niently is  dismissed  the  whole  doctrines  of  the  Christian  atone- 
ment. Grotius  then  is  about  as  good  authority  on  a  question  deeply 
affecting  the  vitaLs  of  the  Gospel,  as  Horace  and  Cicero,  and  Aris- 
tides  and  Demosthenes,  whom  he  calls  to  his  aid.  After  all, 
however,  or  rather  before  all  this,  Grotius  in  his  treatise  against 
Socinus,  most  explicitly  teaches  the  contrary.  See  Bib.  Rep.  II. 
441.  "  Sed  utomnis  hie  error  dematur,  notandum  est,  esse  quidem 
essentiale  pcenas,  ut  infligatur  ob  peccatum,  sed  non  item  essenti- 
ale  ei  esse,  ut  infligatur  ipsi  qui  peccavit."  That  is,  "  But  that 
here,  every  mistake  may  be  removed,  it  must  be  observed,  that  it 
is  essential  indeed  to  punishment,  that  it  be  inflicted  on  account 
of  sin,  but  that  it  is  not  in  like  manner  essential  to  it,  that  it  be 
niflicted  on  the  very  person  who  has  sinned."  Here  is  precisely 
our  idea  of  punishment  on  the  same  page.  "Puniri  alios  ob  ali- 
orum  delicta  non  audet  negare  Socinus."  That  is,  "  Socinus  dare 
not  deny  that  some  dixe  punished  on  account  of  the  sins  of  others." 
And  p.  467,  "  It  is  not  simply  unjust  or  contrary  to  the  nature  of 
punishment  that  one  be  punished  for  the  sins  of  another."  Thus 
Grotius  expressly  dares  Socinus  to  deny  the  application  of  the 
term  punishment  to  suffering  endured  on  account  of  other  men's 
sins.  The  precise  thing  which  Mr.  Barnes  brought  Grotius  him- 
self in  to  deny. 

3.  Mr.  Barnes'  third  appeal  is  to  the  Bible,  to  show  "  that  pun- 
ishment is  to  be  regarded  as  the  evil  inflicted  by  a  just  moral  gover- 
nor for  personal  offence.  You  will  bear  in  mind  that  the  only 
question  here  is  about  personal  offence.  Is  the  word  punishment 
here  applied  where  there  is  not  personal  offence — where  the  per- 
son has  not  by  iiis  own  act  merited  it.  Can  we  say  an  unjust 
punishment  ?  that  a  man  was  punished  unjustly?  Such  a  phrase 
plainly  is  an  application  of  the  word  punish  to  a  person  not  deserv- 
ing it  by  his  own  act.  Let  us  open  the  Bible;  Mr.  Barnes  says 
there  is  no  such  application  of  the  term.  Now  the  very  second 
place  where  the  word  punish  is  used  is  such,  Prov.  xvii.  26,  "  to 
punish  the  just  is  not  good."  Jer.  xliv.  13,  "I  have  punished  Je- 
rusalem by  the  sword,  by  the  famine,  and  by  the  pestilence." — 
Now  it  is  undeniable  many  infants  fell  under  these  ministers  of 
punishment,  who  had  not  personally  sinned.  So  in  Jer.  xxvii.  8, 
and  xxix.  32,  "I  will  punish  Shemaiah  the  Nehelemite,  and  hia 
seed,"  1.  18,  "  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon  and  his  land,  as  I 
have  punished  the  king  of  Assyria."  Now  every  one  knows  that 
in  the  execution  of  this  threatening,  infants  innumerable  were 
involved  in  the  calamity  here  called  punishment.  Shemaiah's 
seed,  who  had  no  personal  action  in  his  sin,  are  included  in 
the  punishment.     I  shall  not  multiply  cases ;  indeed  this  is  the 


109 

more  general  sense  of  the  term.  Gen.  xix.  15,  "Lest  thou 
be  consumed  in  the  iniquity  [gnoii,  punishment]  of  the  city." 
Did  the  infants  of  Sodom  endure  this  punishment  ?  and  had  they 
personally  sinned  1  Jer.  xxi.  19,  "  God  layeth  up  his  iniquity  [Heh. 
his  punishment]  for  his  children."  Punishment  then,  often  falls 
on  those  who  have  not  sinned  personally. 

So  in  the  New  Testament,  "  he  is  guilty  of  death."  Was  Jesus 
personally  deser^ving  ]  But  Mr.  Barnes  says  they  thought  so  who 
used  the  term.  But  the  fact  was,  he  did  die,  and  that  by  appoint- 
ment of  God.  Was  he,  enochos,  guilty,  liable  to  suffer?  did  the  Fa- 
ther's justice  require  him  to  suffer  ?  Jf  so,  then  he  was  in  God's  sight 
enochoSj  guilty,  liable  to  penal  evil ;  if  not,  he  paid  no  debt  of  our 
sin,  and  his  suffering  was  as  unrighteous,  viewed  as  the  decree  of 
God,  as  when  viewed  as  the  decree  of  men  !  Did  his  people  de- 
serve to  be  punished — were  they  enochoi,  guilty,  justly  liable 
to  punishment  7 — was  punishnent  the  precise  thing  required 
of  them  by  the  law? — and  did  Jesus  meet  the  claim  of  law  for 
them  ?  Then  punishment  is  the  proper  name  of  what  he  endured. 

In  other  places  the  term  implies  obligation  of  some  kind.  But 
in  not  one  instance  is  there  any  expressed  limitation  of  the  phrase 
to  liabilities  resulting  from  personal  acts,  although  in  nearly  all 
cases  it  is  thus  in  fact.  But  this  fact  is  only  a  negative  proof  that 
the  word  never  is  used  in  any  other  sense.  The  case  Ileb.  ii.  15, 
is  at  least  not  unequivocally  so  limited.  I  think  neither  the  fear  of 
death  nor  subjection  to  the  bondage  of  Satan  is  limited  to  personal 
sins,  but  belongs  to  the  sin  of  our  nature.  Acts  iv.  21,  "  Finding 
nothing  how  they  might  punish  them  because  of  the  people."  To 
punish  signifies  here,  simply  to  inflict  suffering;  that  was  their 
wish,  but  nottfinding  a  plausible  pretext,  they  desisted,  fearing  a 
popular  commotion. 

4.  Mr.  Barnes'  last  appeal  is  to  old  Calvinistic  writers. 
Here  {a)  "  The  theory  of  one-ness  or  personalidentity  with  Adam" 
is  again  brought 'forward.  We  have  seen  it  exist  only  in  the  ima- 
gination of  those  opposed  to  old  Calvinism.  (6)  Mr.  Barnes  quotes 
Turretin  from  the  Bib.  Rep.  II.  440,  he  says,  for  the  very  opposite 
purpose  to  that  for  which  they  quoted  him.  "  Reatus  theologice 
dicitur  obligatio  ad  poenam  ex  peccato."  Guilt,  among  theologi- 
ans, is  defined,  to  be  obligation  to  punishment  on  account  of  sin.'''' 
But  how  does  this  prove  that  it  is  on  account  of  sin  committed  by 
the  person  who  is  held  to  punishment  ? 

(c)  Mr.  Barnes  quotes  Owen,  Justi.  XI.  246,  (280)  "Guilt  in 
Scripture  is  the  respect  of  sin  unto  the  sanction  of  the  law  where- 
by the  sinner  becomes  obnoxious  unto  punishment."  Again,  "  The 
guilt  of  it  [sin]  is  nothing  but  its  respect  unto  punishment  from 
the  sanction  of  the  law.  Again,  (on  Justification,  280)  he  says, 
"  There  can  be  no  obligation  to  punishment,  where  there  is  no 
desert  of  punishment."  Again,  "The  guilt  of  sin  is  its  desert  of 
punishment,  and  where  is  not  f /its, -there  can  be  no  punishment 
PROPERLY  so  CALLED."     Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  no  man  since  the 

10 


110 

days  of  Paul,  would  so  appal  me  by  his  opposition,  as  John  Owen. 
Can  it  be  possible  that  I  have  so  misunderstood  himl  Can 
it  be,  that  John  Owen  refuses  to  call  that  punishment  which  is 
inflicted  for  the  sin  of  another !  Let  us  look  candidly  and  read 
fairly.  Immediately  after  the  words  first  quoted  here,  it  reads, 
"And  to  be  guilty  is  to  be  vTto  bixoi  rw  OiZ,  liable  unto  punishment 
for  sin,  from  God,  as  the  supreme  Lawgiver  and  Judge  of  all.  And 
so  guilt  or  "  reatus"  is  well  defined  to  be  "  oblvgatio  ad  poinam, 
propter  culpam,  autadmissam  in  se,  aut  imputat am,  juste  aut  in- 
juste."  This  may  be  thus  translated,  "an  obligation  to  punish- 
ment, on  account  of  sin,  either  admitted  against  himself,  or 
imputed, ']i\sl\y  or  unjustly."  Now  the  very  object  for  which  Mr. 
Barnes  quoted  Owen,  was  to  prove  that  guilt  implies  necessarily 
personal  ill  desert.  Had  he  quoted  the  seven  consecutive  lines, 
he  would  have  proved  indubitably  tliat  personal  ill  desert  is  not 
necessary  to  guilt;  but  that  sin  imputed  brought  guilt.  Was 
this  fair  dealing?  Again,  "  There  can  be  no  obligation  to  punish- 
ment, where  there  is  no  desert  of  punishment."  Now  this 
would  seem  to  intimate  that  Owen  would  not  call  a  man  guilty, 
but  for  his  one  personal  desert,  the  very  reverse  of  what  Owen 
teaches.  Now  to  be  candid  let  Owen  speak  the  whole  sentence; 
"  Dignitas  poenK  [desert  of  punishment]  and  obligatio  ad  posnam, 
[obligation  to  pimishment]  is  but  the  same  thing  in  diverse  words. 
For  both  do  but  express  the  relation  of  sin  unto  the  sanction  of  the 
law,  or  if  they  may  be  considered  to  difi^er,  yet  are  they  insepara- 
ble; for  there  can  be  no  obligatio  ad  pcenam  where  there  is  not 
dignitas  pcEnfe." 

By  comparing  the  last  quotation  Mr.  Barnes  makes  above, 
marked  well  with  small  capitals,  with  the  sentence  fully  and 
fairly  taken,  you  will  see  there  is  ground  of  complaint.  "  Sin 
hath  other  considerations  [besides  its  guilt]  namely,  its  formal 
nature,  as  it  is  a  transgression  of  the  law  ;  and  the  stain  of  filth 
that  it  brings  upon  the  soul ;  but  the  guilt  of  it,  is  nothing  but  its 
respect  unto  punishment  from  the  sanction  of  the  law.  And  so 
indeed,  "  refl(^«  culpse,"  is  "  reatus  poense,"  [the  guilt  of  sin,  is, 
"the  guilt  of  punishment ;]  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  its  desert  of  pun- 
ishment. And  where  there  is  not  this  "  reatus  culpse"  [guilt  of 
sin,]  there  can  be  no  "  poena,"  no  punishment  properly  so  called. 
For  "  poena"  is  "  vindicta  noxae,"  "the  revenge  due  to  sin."  Owen 
thus  distinguishes  between  the  stain  of  its  filth  and  the  guilt,  or 
liability  to  its  punishment.  And  on  the  next  page  he  says,  "  that 
our  sins  were  so  transferred  on  Christ,  as  that  thereby  he  became 
asham,  hupodikos  to  Theo,  reus,  responsible  unto  God,  and  ob- 
noxious unto  punishment  in  the  justice  of  God  fur  them."  Punish- 
mewf  then,  according  to  Owen,  the  Redeemer  endured.  What! 
for  "  personal  criminality  ]"  No.  "  Perfectly  innocent  in  himself; 
but  he  took  our  guilt  on  him,  or  our  obnoxiousness  to  punishment 
for  sin."  Why  did  brother  Barnes  attempt  to  press  Owen  into 
such  a  sejrvice  \     But  I  forbear.     I  am  glad  his  quotations  were 


Ill 

not  direct.  I  am  glad  he  is  indebted  to  the  Chri-stian  Spectator 
for  such  garbled,  a/id  inaccurate,  and  unfair  quotations.  I  am 
glad  no  Presbyterian  is  reus  huic  culpse.  (c)  Ridgley  is  quoted 
for  the  same  purpose.  "  Guilt  is  an  obligation,  or  liableness  to 
suffer  punishment  for  sin  committed."  True;  but  committed 
by  whom  ?  By  the  person  who  is  guilty  ]  Can  none  be  guilty  but 
for  "  personal  criminality  1"  Ridgley,  in  the  very  next  sentence 
answers  it.  "  Now  since  this  guilt  was  not  contracted  by  us,  but 
imputed  to  us."  And  p.  120,  Vol.  II.  he  says,  "  And  let  it  be  far- 
ther observed,  that  we  do  not  say  that  there  is  no  punishment  due 
to  original  sin,  as  imiputed  to  us;  for  that  would  be  to  suppose 
that  there  is  no  guilt  attending  it,  which  is  contrary  to  what  we 
have  already  proved." 

I  must  add  a  remark  on  the  5th  and  6th  concluding  observa- 
tions. He  seems  to  wish  to  submit  the  terms  and  the  things  too 
to  common  sense  and  common  use,  as  the  standard.  But  neither  can 
be  admitted  as  umpire,  when  God's  truth  and  the  terms  by  which 
it  is  expressed  are  at  stake.  Here  Mr.  Barnes  remarks,  "  How  can 
a  just  government  be  sustained,  in  the  ends  of  moral  agents,  if  it 
holds  those  guilty  who  are  innocent,  and  punishes  those  who  have 
no  ill-desert  1  This  objection  to  the  language  is  insuperable." 
So  it  is:  But  whose  language  is  it?  No  Calvinist  ever  held  it. 
We  do  not  say  that  children  are  innocent.  The  reverse  is  our 
doctrine.  They  have  deeply-seated  corruption  in  the  heart,  and 
this  is  a  result  of  their  sin  in  their  original  representative,  Adam: 
and  this  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  "  We  can  and  do  preach." 

Again :  Mr.  Barnes  objects  to  our  doctrine,  that  it  makes  God 
unjust.  If  the  Bible  did  teach  that  Adam's  posterity  are  guilty 
and  punishable  for  his  fein,  then  it  would  teach  such  an  unrighteous 
doctrine,  as  to  destroy  itself  "  There  is  no  place,  says  he,  where 
it  is  affirmed,  that  men  are  punished  for  the  sins  of  another ;  and 
were  there,  it  would  be  such  a  departure  from  the  common  use  of 
language,  and  from  the  obvious  principles  of  common  justice,  as  to 
neutralize  no  small  part  of  all  the  proof  that  could  be  brought  for 
the  truth  of  a  divine  revelation."  "  It  not  only  explains  nothing, 
removes  no  perplexity,  but  it  compels  us  to  ask  the  question, 
How  can  this  be  just!  How  can  it  be  right  to  charge  the  sins  of 
the  guilty  on  those  who  had  no  participation  in  them"]"  Now  this 
is  the  very  objection  urged  by  Dr.  Taylor.  "  If  this  be  just — if 
the  Scriptures  teach  such  a  doctrine,  then  the  Scriptures  are  of 
no  use — understanding  is  no  understanding — and  what  a  God  must 
he  be,  that  can  thus  curse  innocent  creatures  1  Is  this  thy  God, 
O  Christian!  Edwards,  Vol.  II.  561.  If  my  brother  will  asso- 
ciate himself  with  such  men  as  Dr.  Taylor  of  Norwich,  I  will  be 
honest  enough,  and  kind  enough  to  tell  him  he  is  in  dangerous 
company.  If  a  Presbyterian  minister  inadvertently  use  the  very 
same  identical  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  our  standards, 
which  are  used  by  the  great  champion  of  Arminianism,  justice  to 
the  truth  of  God,  and  charity  to  the  souls  of  men,  equally  demand 


112 

the  exposition  of  the  fact :  and  no  charge  of  exciting-  odium  shall 
deter  me  from  obeying-  the  calls  of  charity.to  my  brethren,  and 
justice  to  the  truth.  Who  does  not  know  that  this  is,  and  always 
has  been  the  stereotyped  argument  of  Arminianism  against  Cal- 
vinism? Who  does  not  hear  it  reverberating  through  the  land 
continually  1  Who  can  point  out  a  single  Arminian  pulpit  in  the 
Union,  where  it  is  not  the  theme  of  perpetual  vapouring  1  If 
infants  are  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  then 
God  is  unjust. 

Now  it  might  be  sufficient  refutation  of  this  objection  to  iden- 
tify it  with  a  Dr.  Taylor,  either  of  Norwich  or  New  Haven.  But 
lest  it  should  be  thought  rather  a  cavalier-like  treatment,  it  may 
be  proper  to  add  the  interrogation  of  Paul,'  "Is  God  unrighteous 
who  taketh  vengeance  ?"  For  manifestly,  the  fact,  that  infants 
suffer, — the  fact  that  Christ  suffered,  in  the  government  of  God, 
and  by  his  express  appointment,  is  undeniable  :  and  this  Arminian 
objection  lies  not  against  any  peculiar  doctrine  of  Calvinists,  but 
against  the  broad,  obvious,  and  appalling  fact. 

CHARGE  Vni. 

Mr.  Barnes  denies,  "  That  Christ  suffered  the  proper  penalty  of 
the  law,  as  the  vicarious  substitute  of  his  people,  and  thus  took 
away  legally  their  sins,  and  purchased  pardon." 

Proof  1.  All  the  passages  quoted  under  charge  vi.  and  vii.  are 
referred  to  here.  If  the  sin  of  thej^rsf  Adam  is  not  imputed  to  his 
seed,  and  they  are  not  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  it;  then 
it  inevitably  follows,  that  the  sin  of  his  seed  is  not  imputed  to  the 
second  Adam,  and  he  punished  on  account  of  it. 

Proof  2.  p.  89,  90. — "  In  the  plan  of  salvation,  therefore,  he  has 
shown  a  regard  to  the  law,  by  appointing  his  Son  to  be  a  substi- 
tute in  the  place  of  sinners  ;  not  to  endure  its  precise  penalty,  for 
his  sufferings  were  not  eternal,  nor  were  they  attended  with  re- 
morse of  conscience,  or  by  despair,  which  are  the  proper  penalty 
of  the  law;  but  he  endured  so  much  as  to  accomplish  the  same 
ends  as  if  those  who  shall  be  saved  by  him,  had  been  doomed  to 
eternal  death.  That  is,  he  showed  that  the  law  could  not  be  vio- 
lated without  introducing  suffering;  and  that  it  could  not  be  bro- 
ken with  impunity.  He  showed  that  he  had  so  great  a  regard  for 
it,  that  he  would  not  pardon  one  sinner  without  an  atonement. 
And  thus  he  secured  the  proper  honour  to  his  character  as  a  lover 
of  his  law,  a  hater  of  sin,  and  a  just  God.  He  has  shown  that  if 
sinners  do  not  avail  themselves  of  the  offer  of  pardon,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  they  must  experience  in  their  own  souls  for  ever,  the  pains 
which  this  substitute  for  sinners  endured,  in  behalf  of  men,  on  the 
cross."  Thus,  no  principle  of  justice  has  been  abandoned ;  no 
claim  of  his  law  has  been  let  down  :  no  disposition  has  been  evinced 
to  do  injustice  to  the  universe,  by  suffering  the  guilty  to  escape. 
He  is,  in  all  this  great  transaction,  a  just  moral  governor,  as  just 
to  his  law,  to  himself,  to  his  Son,  to  the  universe,  wiien  he  par- 


113 

dons,  as  he  is  when  he  sends  the  incorrigihle  sinner  down  to  hell. 
A  full  compensation,  an  equivalent  has  been  provided  by  the  eiif- 
fering-s  of  the  Saviour,  in  the  sinner's  stead,  and  the  sinner  may  be 
pardoned." 

On  proof  1st,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark, — 1.  It  has  been  shown 
that  Mr.  Barnes  denies  the  existence  of  a  covenant  between  God 
and  Adam,  as  a  representative  head  of  his  posterity.  (Charge  v.) 
Mr.  Barnes  denies,  by  consequence,  that  the  first  sin  of  Adam  is 
imputed  to  his  posterity ;  (Charge  ii.)  and  that  they  are  g-uilty, 
i.  e.  liable  to  punishment  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam.  Proof 
sufficient  has  been  adduced  on  these  several  pomts :  and  also  the 
accused  himself  admits  their  truth,  but  denies  their  relevancy.  He 
sets  up  a  defence  against  these  several  points  of  doctrine. 

2.  It  has  also  been  evinced,  by  good  and  sufficient  proof,  that  a 
parallel  is  drawn  in  Scripture,  and  in  our  standards,  between  Adam 
and  Christ,  (who  is  therefore  called  "the  second  man,")  in  such 
language  and  manner,  as  clearly  shows,  that,  as  the  former  was 
constituted  a  covenant  head  and  representative  of  his  children,  so 
the  latter  is  appointed,  by  the  same  divine  authority,  a  covenant 
head  and  representative  of  his  children.  The  representative  cha- 
racter of  "the  second  man,"  is  as  indubitably  a  doctrine  of  the 
Bible  and  of  our  standards,  as  the  representative  character  of  the 
first  x'Vdam.  The  denial  of  the  one,  is  a  rejection  of  the  other,  and 
vice  versa.  He,  ilierefore,  who  denies  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  to  those  whom  he  represented,  must  deny,  and  does  deny,  the 
correspondent  imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,  to  those  whom 
he  represented;  and  also  the  correspondent  imputation  of  their 
sins  to  their  surety.  3.  Now,  it  is  in  evidence — and  no  man  can 
read  the  defence  of  Mr.  Barnes,  without  perceiving  his  admission 
of  it — Ihat  he  denies  the  transfer  of  legal  relations;  so  that  Adam's 
sin  passes  over  upon  his  children  to  their  condemnation,  and  just 
liability  to  endure  punishment  on  its  account.  And  so  the  sins  of 
Christ's  people  do  not  pass  over  upon  him,  by  a  legal  imputation, 
so  that  he,  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  is  held  guilty,  or  liable  to  punish- 
ment on  their  account. 

BiJt  T  am  perfectly  aware  it  will  be  said — it  has  been  said — this 
is  an  inference  of  mine,  for  which  Mr.  Barnes  is  not  accountable. 
But  it  is  not  so.  He  does  distinctly  affirm,  that  no  such  legal 
transfer  is  or  can  in  right  be  made.  Now,  if  no  such  imputation 
is  or  can  be  made  in  any  case,  then  none  is  made  in  this  case;  and 
the  sins  of  God's  people  are  not  charged  in  law  to  Christ  as  their 
surety,  so  that  he  is  accounted  liable  to  the  penal  consequences: 
and  if  he  was  not  justly  liable  to  punishment,  of  course  God  did  not 
appoint  him  to  endure  penal  evil.  This  is  in  no  other  sense  a 
matter  of  inference  from  the  doctrines  he  teaches,  than  if  a  man 
should  aver,  that  another  had  violated  every  precept  of  the  deca- 
logue, and  it  should  hence  be  said,  that  he  charged  his  neighbour 
with  the  sin  of  Sabbath  breaking.     - 

Proof  2nd.  Here  we  have  the  explicit  statement,  God  appointed 

10* 


114 

his  Son  "not  to  end  are  its  precise  penalty."  Tliis  is  the  tiling 
charged.  I  have  not  supposed  tliat  Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  Christ 
suffered  pain  and  sorrow  fur  men.  They  who  utterly  reject  and 
scout  the  whole  doctrine  of  atonement,  admit  that  Christ  suffered 
for  the  sins  of  men.  But  they  put  their  own  explanation  upon  the 
terms.  Mr.  Barnes  admits  that  Jesus  endured  great  and  sore  evils 
on  account  of  our  sins;  but  he  does  not  adnjit  that  these  were 
penal— ihey  partook  not  of  the  nature  of  punishment— they  were 
not  the  result  of  a  legal  imputation  to  him  of  tlie  sins  of  his  peo- 
ple. But  to  make  the  truth  of  this  charge  quadruply  sure,  it  must 
be  observed,  that  three  reasons  are  alleged,  why  Christ  could  not, 
and  did  not  suffer  the  precise  penalty  of  the  law.  The  possibility 
of  mistaking  iiis  meaning  is  thus  placed  entirely  out  of  question. 

1.  The  first  is,  that  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  "were  not  eternal." 

2.  He  did  not  experience  "remorse  of  conscience."  3.  His  suffer- 
ings were  not  attended  by  despair.  Thus  it  is  infallibly  manifest 
that  Mr.  Barnes  teaches,  as  charged,  that  Christ  did  not  suffer 
penalty.  Whatever  he  endured  was  not  penalty,  however  dread- 
ful the  sufferings  may  have  been.  I  shall  therefore  not  dwell  on 
proofs,  and  especially,  as  the  accused  admits  in  his  pleadings,  ex- 
plicitly and  fully,  the  thing  charged,  as  we  shall  see  in  remarking 
thereon.  Let  us  first,  however,  learn  the  doctrine  of  our  standards 
and  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  important  matter. 

Confession  Chap.  VIII.  §  4. — "This  office  the  Lord  Jesus  did 
most  willingly  undertake,  which,  that  he  might  discharge,  he  was 
made  under  the  law,  and  did  perfectly  fulfil  it;  endured  most 
o-rievous  torments  immediately  in  his  soul,  and  most  painful  suffer- 
ings in  his  body;  was  crucified  and  died."  ^  5.  "The  Lord  Je- 
sus by  his  perfect  obedience  and  sacrifice  of  himself,  which  he 
through  the  eternal  Spirit  once  offered  up  unto  God,  hath  fully 
satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father,  and  purchased  not  only  recon- 
ciliation, but  an  everlasting  inheritance  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
for  all  those  whom  the  Father  hath  given  unto  hmi."  Lar.  Cat. 
49. — "  Having  also  conflicted  with  the  terrors  of  death  and  tlie 
powers  of  darkness,  felt  and  borne  the  weight  of  God's  wrath;  he 
laid  down  his  life  an  offering  for  sin,  enduring  the  painful,  shame- 
ful, and  cursed  death  of  the  cross."  Shor.  Cat.  25. — "Christ  exe- 
cutetli  the  office  of  a  priest,  in  his  once  offering  up  of  himself  a 
sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice,  and  reconcile  us  to  God,  and 
making  continual  intercession  for  us." 

On  these  remark,  1.  Theo6;ecf  of  the  sufferings  of  Jesus,  which 
by  them  he  accomplished,  was  to  satisfy  divine  justice — "he  hath 
fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his  Father."  It  is,  therefore,  of  com- 
manding importance  to  know  what  the  Father's  justice  demanded  ; 
or  in  other  words,  what  God's  law  required  of  his  own  people  who 
had  transgressed  it.  Will  brother  Barnes  tell  us  what  justice  de- 
manded of  Christ's  people,  in  order  to  its  full  satisfaction  ?  Can 
any  man  be  at  a  loss  to  say  what  the  violated  law  requires  1  Do 
not  all  men  know  that  it  demands  the  infliction  of  its  penal  sane- 


115 

tioni  Ctin  jiistice  ha  satisfied— fidly  satisfied — with  any  thing 
short  of  this]  Why,  by  the  very  terms,  to  stop  short  of  the  full 
demand  of  law,  is  injustice:  and  can  justice  be  fully  satisfied 
with  injustice?- — with  a  partial  meeting  of  its  claims ]  Clearly, 
then,  the  very  essential  nature  of  justice  demands  a  penal  inflic- 
tion— an  infliction  of  the  penalty — the  whole  penalty — and  nothing 
but  the  penalty  of  the  laws;  and  any  and  every  diminution  from 
this,  is  a  sacrifice  of  justice.  But  now  Christ  satisfied  fully  the 
justice  of  his  Father;  therefore,  the  claim  of  law  upon  its  vio- 
lators, Jesus  met.  It  demanded  punishment  of  them,  he  endured 
it.  Their  sin,  m  its  legal  effects,  its  jninishment,  he  bore  in  his 
own  body  on  the  tree.  "  The  Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all."  In  what  sense  could  this  be,  unless  as  to  its  punishment — 
"  he  bore  our  sins  in  his  own  body  on  the  tree."  Howf  surely  not 
literally — not  the  pollution!  Nay,  but  the  fenal  effects.  He  died 
♦'  the  just  for  the  unjust" — in  their  legal  room,  enduring  the  penal 
consequences  of  their  sin. 

2.  What  was  it  that  the  law  threatened  as  the  punishment  of 
sin"?  What  is  the  penalty  of  the  covenant  of  works?  Death,  says 
the  Confession  of  our  Faith — man  was  forbidden  to  eat  "upon 
pain  of  death."  So  the  Bible,  "  in  the  day  thou  eatest  thereof, 
thou  shalt  surely  die."  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  the  entire 
system  of  bloody  sacrifices  from  the  days  of  paradise  onward.  All 
proclaimed  the  wages  of  sin  to  be  death  :  all  taught  that  Christ 
our  passover  must  be  sacrificed  for  us. 

3.  As  to  the  nature  of  this  penalty  or  death,  it  is  obvious  we 
can  have  no  precise  and  adequate  ideas.  W^e  may  say,  he 
"  endured  most  grievous  torments  imm^ediately  in  his  soul" — he 
"  was  made  a  curse  for  us" — "  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise 
him" — he  "made  his  soul  an  ofl^ering  for  sin" — "he  conflicted 
with  the  terrors  of  death  and  the  powers  of  darkness,  felt  and 
bore  the  weight  of  God's  wrath."  He  was  forsaken  of  God  ; 
but  after  all  we  know  not  what  it  was,  his  human  body  and  soul 
suffered,  To  raise  an  inquest  after  the  amount  of  pain  and 
anguish,  would  obviously  be  worse  than  folly  and  vanity.  God 
has  furnished  us  with  no  rule  in  his  woj'd  or  in  our  nature,  by 
which  to  measure  pain.  It  cannot  be  measured  by  duration.  It 
cannot  be  estimated  by  degrees  of  intensity.  It  cannot  be  told 
by  numbers  or  quantity.  What  the  frown  of  heaven  may  be,  we 
cannot  tell.  What  the  human  spirit,  sustained  by  the  almighty 
power  of  the  eternal  Spirit  in  our  blessed  Redeemer,  could 
endure,  and  did  suffer  in  that  awful  hour,  no  creature  will  ever 
know.  When  we  view  the  scenes  of  Gethsemane,  and  the  sor- 
rows of  Calvary. — When  we  hear  the  declaration,  "my  soul  is 
exceeding  sorrowful,  even  unto  death." — When  we  see  the  "great 
drops  of  blood  falling  down  to  the  ground." — When  we  heaj  the 
prayer  of  agonized  humanity:  "Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this 
cup  pass  from  me." — When  the  final  withdrawings  of  a  Father's 
love,  as  to  its  sensible  exercises,  leaves  the  soul  to  drink  the  bit- 


IIG 

terness  of  wrath  divine,  and  wring  from  tlie  last  agonies  of  ex- 
piring humanity — the  tomb-startling  shriek,  "My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?"  our  feelings  tell  us  justice  must 
now  be  satisfied  to  the  full :  the  bitterness  of  that  death,  which 
constitutes  the  punishment  of  our  sin  is  over ;  the  law's  whole 
demand  against  our  divine  Surety  on  our  account,  is  met  and 
fully  paid.  And'  when  we  know,  that  it  pleased  the  Lord  to 
bruise  him  thus,  we  see  evidence  full  and  clear,  that  he  could  not 
thus  suffer,  unless  he  were  justly  liable  to  sutler — our  sins  were 
charged  in  law  against  him,  and  therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord. 
We  ought  to  observe  here,  that  the  Hebrew  for  the  word  pleased^ 
expresses  satisfaction  very  commonly — complacency :  As  Psalm 
xxii.  8.  "He  delighted  in  him."  Pt--.  xli.  11.  '^^  Thou  favourest 
me."  Is.  xlii.  21.  "  The  Lord  is  well  pleased  for  his  righteous- 
ness sake."  "So  the  Lord  was  jdeased to  bruise  him."  Now  there 
is  no  reconciling  of  this  v/ith  the  goodness  of  God,  but  by  the  glo- 
rious and  blessed  doctrine  that  a  claim  of  justice  lay  against  him  ; 
which  claim  could  in  no  conceivable  manner  exist,  but  through 
the  sins  of  his  people,  whom  he  represented,  being  imputed  to 
him,  and  he  thus  becoming  liable  to  punishment  on  their  account. 

4.  The  inevitable  consequence  of  his  enduring  for  his  own 
sheep,  for  whom  he  laid  down  his  life,  the  penal  consequences  of 
their  sins,  is  their  deliverance  from  them.  This  results  from  the 
very  nature  of  God's  justice.  The  law's  entire  claim  against  the 
sheep  of  Christ's  flock,  their  adorable  Surety  has  liquidated.  This 
secures  two  results;  his  own  deliverence  from  the  mortal  bondage 
of  the  grave,  for  "  it  was  not  possible  he  should  be  holden  of 
death ;"  and  their  pardon  bought  with  blood.  Jesus  hath  a  right 
to  the  release  of  his  people  from  all  the  penal  consequences  of 
their  sins.  Death  hath  no  more  right  of  dominion  over  them ; 
for  He  has  satisfied  the  law  whose  claim  gave  death  all  bis  power, 
and  the  grave  all  its  terror.  Pardon,  therefore, — the  remission  of 
sins — the  omission  to  punish  his  dearly-bought  f]ock,  is  to  Jesus  a 
matter  of  pure  justice.  When  he  advocates  their  cause  before 
the  divine  throne,  he  puts  in  a  claim  of  right.  He  asks  no  sacri- 
fice of  justice  ;  but  prays  the  Father  to  do  justice  to  him,  in  dis- 
pensing pardon  to  them.  Hence  the  love  of  God  the  Father  is 
displayed  in  the  gift  of  such  a  Surety:  {he  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  in  dispensing  pardon.  For  to  them  from  him  it  is  all  of 
grace ;  whilst  to  Him  from  the  Father,  it  is  all  of  debt ;  and 
hence  "  God  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our  sins." 

Such,  Mr.  Moderator,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  confession  and  of  the 
Bible.  Such  is  the  plan  of  redemption  by  the  vicarious  substitu- 
tion of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  law-place  and  room  of  his  people,  and 
I  can  truly  say,  my  soul  is  grieved  to  be  forced  to  believe  that  my 
brother  does  not  believe  it. 

5.  One  other  observation  I  desn-e  to  make.  It  is  of  a  general 
nature,  viz.  That  every  remedial  scheme  goes,  as  the  very  name 
indicates,  to  establish  the  principle  of  the  original  institute.    Now 


117 

the  covenant  of  works  is  the  original  institute  in  the  present  case, 
and  the  great  principle  of  it  was,  to  give  life  to  man,  on  the 
ground  of  a  perfect  and  full  compliance  with  law.  Perfect  obe- 
dience was  to  secure  life.  This  failed  in  the  hands  of  the  first 
Adam,  and,  in  infinite  mercy,  God  provided  a  mediator  to  remedy 
the  evils  of  the  fall,  by  establishing  the  law  as  the  rule  of  obe- 
dience still.  Jesus  did  so — he  fulfilled  the  law  in  its  precept,  (as 
we  shall  see  hereafter,)  and  he  exhausted  the  penalty  :.  hence  he 
claims  the  promised  reward,  even  life  everlasting,  for  all  his  peo- 
ple ;  on  the  basis  of  the  original  grant,  in  the  first  covenant. 
Let  us  now  attend  to  Mr.  Barnes'  defence,  and 

1.  He  alleges  that  three  things  are  mentioned  as  included  in 
the  penalty  of  the  law,  viz.  eternity  of  duration  to  suflTering, 
remorse  of  conscience  and  despair,  which  Christ  could  not,  and 
did  not  endure.  As  to  the  whole  of  this,  it  is  plainly  a  metaphy- 
sical distinction  unknown  to  the  Scriptures.  They  say  nothing 
definitely  about  remorse  of  conscience  and  despair,  as  descriptive 
of  the  penalty  of  law.  The  former  term  is  not  found  at  all,  and 
the  latter  only  once,  and  that  not  on  this  subject.  But  particu- 
larly :  (a)  Eternity  of  suffering  is  essential  to  the  penalty.  This 
has  reference  to  amount,  it  is  infinite,  and  its  endurance  infinitely 
honours  the  law.  But  now  the  infinitely  glorious,  and  holy,  and 
exalted  Son  of  God  could  pay  this  infinite  debt — could  endure  this 
infinitude  of  divine  wrath  in  finite  duration.  This  is  the  plain, 
and  obvious,  and  common,  and  satisfactory  answer  to  the  univer- 
salist  and  infidel  objection  against  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  (b) 
Remorse  of  conscience,  as  before  intimated,  is  not  a  scriptural 
phrase,  and  to  settle  its  precise  meaning,  would,  I  presume,  be  as 
difficult  as  to  end  the  present  controversy.  Brother  Barnes  means 
by  it,  that  feeling  which  arises  from  personal  criminality;  mean- 
ing by  personal  criminality,  I  presume,  moral  turpitude,  and  then 
properly  enough  denies  that  Christ  could  experience  it.  But  as 
the  Bible  and  our  Confession  do  not  render  it  necessary  to  go  into 
this  metaphysic,  I  suppose  wisdom  dictates  adherence  to  its  sim- 
ple language,  (c)  Despair  is  a  term  not  so  difficult  to  understand. 
It  is  once  used  in  Scripture — "  cast  down,  but  not  in  despair" — 
where  it  seems  to  mean  a  high  feeling  of  despondency  :  an  appre- 
hension of  failure  in  the  work  before  us.  But  in  reference  to 
both  these,  I  am  satisfied,  that  all  minute,  metaphysical  inqui- 
ries into  tlie  nature  of  these  feelings  which  agitated  the  agonized 
soul  of  the  Saviour  are  entirely  improper ;  and  can  lead  to  no  pro- 
fitable results.  On  the  contrary,  the  statement  already  given  is 
clear,  Scriptural,  and  ought  to  be  satisfactory.  The  proper 
penalty  of  the  law  is  death — "  thou  shalt  surely  die."  Jesus  did 
die  under  ihe  curse  of  the  broken  law. 

2.  My  only  reply  to  the  first  four  remarks  under  this  head,  is 
that  they  all  go  to  deny  the  penal  nature  of  Christ's  sufferings. 
Webster's  definition  of  punishment  Jn  reference  to  personal  and 
private  offence,  is  again  brought  in,  whilst  his  definition  in  refer- 


118 

ence  to  public  law,  is  left  out  of  view.  Under  the  second,  he 
says  that  the  lang-uage  of  the  Confession,  that  Jesus  *'  felt  and 
bore  the  weight  of  God's  wrath,"  must  be  understood  figuratively. 

1  can  only  say,  I  am  truly  sorry  at  every  attempt  to  pare  down 
and  diminish  our  apprehension  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ.  I 
must  think  they  were  beyond  any  conception  we  can  have,  and 
the  power  of  any  language  we  can  use.  To  say,  "it  was  impos- 
sible— that  he  should  endure  that  proper  penalty,"  is  in  my 
apprehension,  a  perilous  assertion. 

His  fifth  remark  begfins  thus:  "If  Christ  had  endured  the  strict 
penalty  of  the  law,  then  the  law  would  have  no  claims  on  us  now. 
If  the  debt  was  fully  and  literally  paid,  and  all  the  penalty  re- 
moved, they  for  whom  it  was  paid  have  a  right  to  a  discharge, 
and  are  already  innocent  before  God.  The  view,  therefore,  which 
affirms  that  that  penalty  is  truly  paid,  leads  at  once  to  all  the  evils 
of  Antinomianism."  Here  observe,  (a)  Mr.  Barnes  rejects  in  the 
most  express  terms,  the  penal  nature  of  Christ's  death,  (b)  He 
denies  the  doctrine  of  satisfaction  altogether.  He  maintains  that 
Jesus  did  not  render  full  return  to  the  violated  law — that  all  the 
penalty  is  not  removed.  And,  (c)  to  put  the  matter  beyond  all 
doubt,  he  gives  his  reasons  why  he  thinks  it  dangerous  to  teach 
the  doctrine  of  full  satisfaction  being  rendered  to  divine  justice 
by  the  Saviour's  death.  The  first,  and  which  is  the  foundation  of 
all  the  rest,  is  that,  if  there  had  been  full  satisfaction  rendered, 
then,  "  all  the  penalty  being  removed,  they  for  whom  it  was  .paid 
have  a  right  to  a  discharge."  Again  he  says,  "When  a  law  or 
penalty  is  fully  paid,  the  law  has  no  further  claims  on  men ;  and 
if  the  full  penalty  had  been  met  by  the  substitute  as  really  and 
truly  as  if  the  criminal  had  himself  borne  it,  then  he  has  a  claim 
to  a  discharge,  and  his  release  becomes  not  in  any  sense  a  matter 
of  grace  or  favour,  but  a  matter  of  right."  The  same  is  taught 
under  his  sixth  remark.  "If  this  doctrine  be  true;  if  it  be  affirmed 
that  Christ  endured  the  literal,  complete,  and  proper  penalty  of 
the  law,  then  it  follows  that  no  gain  has  resulted  to  the  universe 
from  his  intervention.  All  that  has  been  done,  has  been  to  tranS' 
Jer  the  penalty,  involving  the  same  kind  and  degree  of  suffering 
from  the  guilty  to  the  innocent.  Just  as  much  suffering  has  been 
endured  on  this  supposition  as  though  the  elect  had  endured  it  in 
their  own  persons  in  the  eternal  fires  of  hell."  Hence  it  is  clear 
to  a  demonstration,  that  Mr.  Barnes  maintains  a  defective  satis- 
faction— that  Christ's  sufferings  were  not  punishment  at  all — and 
that  they  were  not  in  degree  and  amount  equal  to  the  whole  de-  ' 
mand  of  the  law's  penalty.  This  is  yet  more  evident  by  a  remark 
a  little  below,  where  he  agrees,  "that  a  vast  amount  of  suffering 
in  the  universe  has  been  prevented" — that  Christ's  sufferings 
being  so  much  inferior  in  amount  to  those  deserved  by  his  people, 
have  diminished  by  that  excess,  the  total  of  pain  endured  in  the 
imiverse,  and  this  is  the  chief  glory  of  the  atonement;  but  the 
doctrine  that  he  suflfered  the  full  demand  of  law,  "dims  its  moral 


119 

luatre  and  glory."  Here,  unquestionably,  is  the  idea  of  a  relin- 
quishment, in  part,  of  the  strict  claims  of  law  against  the  people 
of  God  ;  the  penalty  is  not  fully  paid  ;  the  lustre  and  glory  of  the 
atonement  consists  in  Grod's  accepting  something  less  than  strict 
justice  required.  Like  a  condescending  and  indulgent  creditor 
to  an  unfortunate  endorser  or  surety,  he  compounds,  and  for  a 
partial  payment  releases  both  surety  and  principal. 

Now,  let  us  set  in  contrast  with  this,  the  words  of  our  Confes- 
sion. "The  Lord  Jesus  hath  fully  satisfied  the  justice  of  his 
Father."  *'  The  justice,"  you  will  observe,  not  the  benevolence 
— but  the  JUSTICE  of  his  Father  is  fully  satisfied.  Can  a  more 
peremptory  contradiction  be  framed  in  language,  than  is  here  ex- 
hibited between  brother  Barnes  and  the  Confession  of  Faith] 

As  the  issue  is  fairly  joined  on  this  point,  let  us  see  what  others 
have  held.  And  as  Turretin  is  generally  viewed  as  expressing 
the  sense  of  all  orthodox  Christians,  let  us  hear  him.  "  De  satis- 
factionis  Christi  veritate."  Pars.  L  \  9.  "  It  is  one  thing  for 
Christ  to  have  died  usefully  for  us,  i.  e.  for  our  good  and  advan- 
tage; dino\hQx,forus  by  substitution,  i.  e.  in  our  room  and  place ; 
one  thing,  that  he  has  been  delivered  up  on  account  [propter  pec- 
cata,]  of  our  sins  incidentally,  that  also  he  might  draw  us  off  from 
them ;  another,  causally  and  meritoriously,  that  by  taking  the 
guilt  of  them  [eorum  reatum,]  upon  himself,  he  might  also  make 
expiation  by  paying  in  his  own  body  all  the  punishments  due  to 
there" — [poBtias  omnes  illis  debitas  in  corpore  suo  tuendo  expie- 
ret.]  Thus  Turretin  teaches  a  full  and  proper  satisfaction  by 
Christ's  suffering  the  whole  penalty — all  the  punishment  due  to 
the  sins  of  his  people,  and  this  as  a  result  of  his  having  taken 
their  guilt  upon  himself  He  immediately  adds,  "It  is  one  thing 
to  speak  of  such  kind  of  satisfaction,  by  which  Christ  shall  have 
satisfied  all  those  things  which  were  imposed  upon  him  by  the 
will  of  God  for  procuring  our  salvation  ;  another,  to  speak  of 
penal  satisfaction — [de  satisfactione  poenali,]  and  properly  so 
called,  by  which  he  shall  have  satisfied  not  only  the  will  of  God, 
but  also  the  divine  justice,  our  punishments  being  assumed  unto 
himself,  [assumptis  in  se  nostris  pcenis."]  Here,  again,  Turretin 
maintains  that  the  satisfaction  of  Christ  is  penal,  the  punishment 
due  to  us  falling  upon  him ;  and  he  says,  "  the  question  is  not 
concerning  the  first,  which  the  adversaries  do  not  deny  ;  but  only 
concerning  the  second,  which  they  petulantly  reject."  His  op- 
ponents admitted  some  kind  of  satisfaction,  but  denied  it  was 
penal — that  its  endurance  was  punishment — that  Christ  bore  our 
guilt,  and  satisfied  the  divine  justice.  Whether  this  be  not  the 
precise  point  of  brother  Barnes'  opposition,  T  leave  his  readers  to 
judge,  adding  only,  that  the  opponents  whom  Turretin  cites  are 
Crellius  and  Smalzius,  distinguished  Socinians.  Again,  Part  IL 
19,  he  says,  "Neither  can  punishment  [pcena,]  be  separated  from 
satisfaction,  seeing  Christ  hath  so  bor-ne  it  [punishment,]  most  fully, 
[plenissime,]  that  he   has  endured  it  entirely,  and  exhausted  it 


120 

altogether f''  and  this  he  says  Jesus  suffered,  not  as  from  the  hand 
of  the  Father,  but  "  from  him  as  a  judge  out  of  justice,  on  account 
of  which  he  is  said  to  be  made  a  curse  and  sin" — "that  we  may 
know  that  a  commutation  of  debt  had  been  made  between  us  and 
Christ."  The  italics  are  Turretin's  own,  and  show  most  clearly 
that  he  believed  the  Saviour  bore  our  sin  legally,  as  a  matter  of 
justice,  by  cornmutaiioneyn  debiti,  and  that  he  endured  the  pun- 
ishment [poena,]  most  fully,  entirely,  and  totally — plenissime, 
omnino,  penitus.  Can  JVIr.  Barnes,  or  any  other  man,  express 
the  idea  more  fully  and  entirely  and  totally,  that  Jesus,  being 
reus,  liable  on  account  of  our  sin,  did  endure  the  whole  punish- 
ment due  to  us? 

Let  us  hear  from  him  once  more.     Part  VIII.  8,  ''  The  objec- 
tors endeavour  to  prove  that  on  God's  part  satisfaction  is  impossi- 
ble, because  God  every  where  in  Scripture  is  represented  as  gra- 
tuitously and  mercifully  forgiving  all  our  sins.    Now,  if  he  remits 
gratuitously,  say  they,  in  what  manner  could  he  either  demand 
satisfaction  or  remit .'  what  is  more  contrary  to  reniission  than 
true  and  full  satisfaction.     If  you  answer,  that  indeed  remission 
and  satisfaction  are  repugnant,  but  in  as  much  as  satisfaction  pro- 
ceeds from  him  who  either  has  procured,  or  ought  to  procure  re- 
mission, they  can  be  perfectly  consistent,  seeing  it  is  remitted  to 
one,  but  another  satisfies  for  him  ;  they  retort,  that  the  answer  is 
vain — 1st,  because  a  debt  cannot  be  said  to  be  remitted  for  which 
that  is  given  which  fully  satisfies;  for  what  necessity  of  remis- 
sion, where  there  is  no  longer  any  debt ;  but  there  is  no  longer  any 
debt  where  already  it  has  been  fully  satisfied;  for,  2d,  that  a  debt 
may  be  remitted,  it  is  not  sufficient  for  the  debtor  to  be  set  free, 
although  he  hiuiself  shall  have  paid  nothing,  but  it  is  necessary 
that  the  obligation  itself  be  entirely  extinguished,  by  the  liberality 
alone  of  the  creditor,  so  that  neither  the  debtor  himself,  nor  the 
person  substituted  in  his  place,  may  pay  any  thing  to  the  creditor. 
3d.  If  a  person  transfer  a  debt  to  himself,  the  debtor  can  very 
properly  be  said  to  be  commuted,  but  the  debt  cannot  be  said  to 
be  remitted,  seeing,  at  last,  the  creditor  has  received  to  a  farthing 
what  was  due.     4th.  If  Christ  has  paid  in  our  place,  in  him,  and 
with  him,  we  can  be  esteemed  to  have  paid ;   but  if  we  are 
esteemed  to  have  paid,  then  God  cannot  be  said  to  remit  out  of 
grace,  but  of  justice,  because  it  would  be  unjust  in  God  not  to 
absolve  us,  the  payment  bein^^  already  made,"  Here  is  something 
very  plausible  by  way  of  objection,  and  I  think  it  essentially  and 
substantially  and  identically  the  same  with  the  objections  of  Mr. 
Barnes.     Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  it  is  painful  to  tell  the  truth,  and 
but  for  the  truth's  sake,  and  for  my  brother's  sake,  and  for  the 
church's  sake,  and  for  Christ's  sake,  I  will  add  the  last  words  of 
this  paragraph  from  Turretin  :  "Sic  argutator  Socinus."    "Thus 
argues  Socinus."     Ought  not  a  Christian  minister  to  be  alarmed 
when  he  discovers  such  coincidence  of  sentiment? 

Two  evil  consequences  are  supposed  by  Mr.  Barnes  to  follow 


121 

the  doctrine  of  full,  legal  satisfaction.  1.  •*  Eternal  justijica' 
iion.''^  But  if  we  follow  the  Confession  and  the  Bible,  we  must 
inevitably  escape  this  rock  on  which  many  have  split  and  gone 
down.  Onf.  chap.  XI.  ^4.  "God  did,  from  all  eternity,  decree 
to  justify  all  the  elect ;  and  Christ  did,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  die 
tor  their  sins,  and  rise  again  for  tiieir  justification ;  nevertheless, 
they  are  not  justified,  until  the  Holy  Ghost  doth,  in  due  time,  ac- 
tually apply  Christ  to  them."  "He  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  No  man  is  ever  justified  but  by  faith.  If  he  believe 
not — if  he  repent  not — if  he  do  not  live  in  practical  holiness — he 
is  not  a  justified  man.  But,  secondly,  and  almost  the  same  thing, 
the  doctrine  of  full,  legal  satisfaction,  is  charged  -with  leading 
to  Antinomianism.  And  it  is  not  to  be  quet;tioned  that  this, 
and  the  doctrine  of  election,  and  the  doctrine  of  perseverance 
in  grace,  if  set  by  themselves,  and  detached  from  their  kindred 
doctrines  of  faith,  repentance,  regeneration,  &c.  become  Antino- 
mian.  The  doctrine  of  free  grace  in  salvation  is  Antinomian,  if 
thus  detaciied.  And  what  principle  of  divine  truth,  if  abused, 
will  not  lead  to  ruin  1  Will  not  the  blood  of  Jesus,  if  trampled 
under  foot,  double  the  damnation  of  the  impenitent  sinner  ]  What 
theni  Shall  we  refuse  to  preach  salvation  bought  by  blood? 
Now?,  I  ask,  what  peculiar  tendency  is  there  in  the  glorious  doctrine 
of  full,  free,  and  perfect  satisfaction  to  the  justice  of  God,  by  the 
punishment  of  my  sin  in  my  blessed  Surety — what  tendency  is 
ihere  here  to  Antinomianism  T  How  can  this  lead  me  to  love 
sin  ?  When  I  hear  the  sighs  of  Gethsemane,  and  the  groans  of 
Calvary,  and  the  thought  rushes  in  upon  my  soul — He  suiters  the 
punishment  due  to  my  transgression — is  there  here  any  peculiar 
motive  to  love  sin  and  practice  unholineFs]  When  1  mark  the 
falling  tear;  the  big  rolling  drops  of  ming'led  sweat  and  blood;  the 
pierced  hands  and  bleeding  side  and  panting  bosom  and  agonized 
soul,  and  say  to  mj^self.  He  drinks  the  wrath  of  God ;  the  curse 
of  the  broken  law  pours  in  upon  his  holy  soul;  it  is  the  punish- 
ment of  my  sin — is  there  here  a  motive  to  continued  rebel- 
lion T  Ah  !  my  brother,  if  heaven  can  present  to  earth  a  motive 
almighty  to  holy  action,  here  it  is,  in  the  glorious  doctrine  that 
Christ  bore  the  penalty  of  law  due  to  our  sins.  Take  back,  then, 
your  charge  of  Antinomianism.  "  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law 
through  faith  1  God  forbid.  Yea,  we  establish  the  law.'*  Oh  no  ! 
I  am  as  ready  as  any  man  to  go  on  a  crusade  against  all  the  pol- 
luted hosts  of  Antinomianism,  who  inhabit  the  holy  land ;  but 
then  my  brother  must  not  tear  away  the  very  cross  itself.  I  can  fol- 
low only  that  banner;  and  if  I  didn't  believe  t.hat  Christ  had  en- 
dured the  penalty — that  Jesus  had  suffered  the  full  punishment  of 
my  sin,  then,  instead  of  following  his  cross,  I  should  be  seeking 
one  of  my  own,  on  which  to  endure  for  myself  what' remains  of 
the  law's  just  dem.and — my  goul  should  be  "  exceeding  sorrowful 
even  unto  death." 

One  other  remark  here.     Brother  Barnes  charges  with  Antino- 
mianism, the  doctrine  that  Christ  sufferfed  penally  and  to  the  full  the 

U 


punishment  of  his  people's  sine.  This  same  charge  was  brought 
against  Paul's  doctrine  of  grace;  does  not  this  seem  to  say  that 
our  doctrine  an]  hid  are  identical]  Would  the  same  argument 
be  urged  against  both,  if  both  were  not  the  same? 

As  to  the  7th  item,  it  is  necessary  only  to  repeat,  he  therein 
distinctly  admits  the  satisfaction  or  sufferings  of  Christ  to  be,  not 
the  proper  penalty  required  by  the  law,  but  only  a  substitute  in 
the  place  of  it.     This  is  the  thing  charged. 

On  the  three  remaining  subdivisions,  in  which  Mr.  Barnes  has 
thought  proper  to  cut  up  the  proposition  of  this  eighth  charge,  I 
have  only  two  remarks.  1.  He  denies,  as  has  been  proved,  1  sup- 
pose, the  representative  character  of  the  second  as  of  the  first 
Adam;  that  Christ  was  constituted  the  covenant  head  of  his  peo- 
ple; and  acted  for  them  in  a  legal  respect,  bearing  their  liabilities 
to  obedience  and  suffering.  This  is  what  I  suppose  to  be  meant 
by  a  vicarious  substitute,  and  therefore  consider  the  whole  doctrine 
of  legal  substitution  as  rejected  in  the  notes.  His  affirming  here 
that  he  maintains  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  vicarious  substitution 
and  action  for  his  people,  only  proves  that  he  attaches  to  the  terms 
a  meaning  which  is  not  common  and  which  I  am  unable  fully  to 
comprehend.  2.  The  other  remark  is,  that  I  can  see  no  just 
ground  for  the  reiterated  complaints  of  injury  and  injustice.  I 
have  stated  07ie  distinct  plain  proposition.  Mr.  Barnes  divides  it 
into  four.  He  draws  the  inference  that  I  charge  hini  with  four 
errors  here  instead  of  one,  and  believing  that  the  ftftir  are  not 
found  in  his  book,  complains  of  injustice.  If  it  has  not  been  proved 
that  he  rejects  the  doctrine  of  our  sin  being  imputed  to  Christ 
and  his  suffering  the  penaltij  of  it,  then  the  charge  is  not  proved  ; 
but  if  that  is  established,  then  the  whole  charge  is  sustained  and 
no  injustice  is  done.  For  in  that  case,  even  the  three  inferred  pro- 
positions are  sustained,  and  the  author's  using  some  phraseology 
apparently  inconsistent  with  them  is  no  evidence  to  the  contrary. 
It  requires  extreme  caution  in  one  who  reads  old  orthodox  works 
occasionally  to  avoid  in  his  own  writings  the  use  of  words  and 
even  phrases  expressive  of  sound  doctrine  when  he  does  not  intend 
it. 

CHARGE  IX. 

Mr.  Barnes  denies  "  That  the  righteousness,  i.  c.  the  active  obe- 
dience of  Christ  to  the  law,  is  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justi- 
fication ;  so  that  they  are  righteous  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and 
therefore  justified." 

Proof  1.  p.  28.  (3)  The  phrase  righteousness  of  God,  is  equiva- 
lent to  God^s  plan  of  justifying  men;  his  scheme  of  declaring 
them  just  in  the  sight  of  the  law ;  or  of  acquitting  them  from  punish- 
ment and  admitting  them  to  favour.  In  this  sense  it  stands  oppo- 
sed to  man^s  plan  of  justification,  i.  e.  by  his  own  works.  God's 
plan  is  by  faith."  "  The  word  to  justify,  6txatow,  means  pro- 
perly to  be  just,  to  be  innocent,  to  be  righteous.     It  then  means  to 


123 

declare^  or  treat  as  righteous,  as  when  a  man  is  charged  with  an 
offence,  and  is  acquitted.  If  the  crime  alleged  is  not  proved 
against  him,  he  is  declared  by  the  law  to  be  innocent.  It  then 
means  to  treat  as  if  innocent^  to  regard  as  innocen.t ;  that  is,  to 
pardon,  to  forgive,  and  consequently  to  treat  as  if  the  ofTence  had 
not  occurred.  It  does  not  mean  that  the  man  did  not  commit  the 
ofFence,  or  that  the  law  might  not  have  held  him  answerable  for 
it;  but  that  the  offence  is  forgiven ;  and  it  is  consistent  to  receive 
the  offender  into  favour,  and  treat  him  as  ifYie  had  not  committed 
it." 

"  In  regard  to  this  plan  it  may  be  observed,  (1)  That  it  is  not 
to  declare  that  men  are  innocent  and  pure.  That  would  not  be 
true.  The  truth  is  just  the  reverse;  and  God  does  not  esteem 
men  to  be  different  from  what  they  are.  (2)  It  is  not  to  take  part 
with  the  sinner,  and  to  mitigate  his  offences.  It  admits  them  to 
their  full  extent,  and  makes  him  feel  them  also.  (3)  It  is  not  that 
we  become  partakers  of  the  essential  righteousness  of  God.  That 
is  impossible.  (4)  It  is  not  that  his  righteousness  becomes  ours. 
This  is  not  true;  and  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that 
can  be  understood.  But  it  is  God's  plan  ^ov  pardoning  sin,  and  for 
treating  us  as  if  we  had  not  committed  it;  that  is,  adopting  us  as 
his  children,  and  admitting  us  to  heaven,  on  the  ground  of  what 
the  Lord  Jesus  has  done  in  our  stead.  This  is  God's  plan.  Men 
seek  to  save  themselves  by  their  own  works.  God's  plan  is  to 
fiave  them  by  the  merits  of  Jesus  Christ." 

Proof  2.  p.  84,  85.  "  Even  the  righteousness  of  God.  The 
apostle,  having  stated  that  the  design  of  the  Gospel  was  to  reveal 
a  new  plan  of  becoming  just  in  the  sight  of  God,  proceeds  here 
more  fully  to  explain  it.  The  explanation  which  he  offers,  makes 
it  plain  that  the  phrase  so  often  used  by  him,  *^  righteousness  of 
God^''  does  not  refer  to  an  attribute  of  God,  but  to  his  plan  of  mak- 
ing men  righteous.  Here  he  says,  that  it  is  by  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ;  but  surely  an  attribute  of  God  is  not  produced  by  faith  in 
Jesus  Christ.  It  means  God's  mode  of  regarding  men  as  righte- 
ous through  their  belief  in  Jesus  Christ.  "  God  has  promised  that 
they  who  believe  in  Christ,  shall  be  pardoned  and  saved.  This  is 
his  plan  in  distinction  from  the  plan  of  those  wlio  seek  to  be  justi- 
fied by  works." 

"  Being  justified. — Being  treated  as  if  righteous,  that  is,  being 
regarded  and  treated  as  if  they  had  kept  the  law.  The  apostle 
has  shown  that  they  could  not  be  so  regarded  and  treated  by  any 
merit  of  their  own,  or  by  personal  obedience  to  the  law.  He 
now  affirms  that  if  they  were  so  treated,  it  must  be  by  mere  fa- 
vour, and  as  a  matter,  not  of  right,  but  of  gift.  This  is  the  essence 
of  the  Gospel. 

Proof  3.  p.  94,  95,  as  quoted  under  Charge  IV  (7)  and  p.  96. 
**  God  juflges  things  as  they  are  ;  and  sinners  who  are  justified, 
he  judges  not  as  if  they  were  pure^or  as  if  they  had  a  claim ;  but 
iie  regards  them  as  united  by  faith  to  the  Lord  Jesus^  and  in  this 


124 

relation  he  judges  that  f^etf  sJiould  be  treated  as  his  friends, 
though  they  have  been,  are,  and  alicuys  will  be  personally  xnide- 
ser-ving.  But  it"  the  doctrine  of  tlie  Scriptures  was,  that  the  en- 
lire  rijrliteousness  of  Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and 
i,ruly  theirs,  and  was  transferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what 
propriety  could  the  apostle  say,  that  God  justified  the  ungodly? 
If  they  have  all  the  riw-hteousness  of  Christ  as  their  own,  as  really 
.and  truly  theirs,  as  if  they  had  wrought  it  out  themselves,  they 
are  not  "  ungodly.''''  They  are  eminently  pure  and  holy,  and 
have  a  claim,  not  of  grace,  butof  debt,  to  the  very  highest  rewards 
of  heaven,"  p.  D7.  Unto  lohoin  God  imputeih  righteousness. — 
Whom  God  treats  as  rigiiteous,  or  as  entitled  to  his  favour  in  a 
\way  different  fronj  his  conformity  to  tiie  law.  This  is  found  in 
Psahn  xxxii.  And  the  whole  scope  and  design  of  the  Psalm  is 
to  show  the  blessedness  of  the  man  who  is  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  are  notchargedonhim,  but  who  is  freed  from  the  punishment 
due  to  his  sins.  Being  thus  pardoned,  be  is  treated  as  a  righte- 
ous man." 

Proof  4.  p.  127.  By  the  obedience  of  one. — Of  Christ.  This 
stands  opposed  to  ihe  disobedience  of  Adam,  and  evidently  includes 
the  entire  work  of  the  Redeemer  which  has  a  bearing  on  the  sal- 
vation of  men.     Phil.  ii.  B.     "  He became   obedient   unto 

,death." 

P.  212.  "  God's  righteousness.  TCot  of  the  personal  holinefs 
,of  God,  but  of  God's  plan  of  justifying  men,  or  ofdeclaring  them 
•righteous  by  faith  in  his  Son.  Here  God's  plan  stands  opposed  to 
.iheir  effort's  to  make  themsolves  righteous  by  their  own  works." 

J.  The  silence  of  this  book  of  notes  on  the  subject  of  Christ's 
righteousness  being  imputed  to  his  people  for  their  justification,  gives 
ground  to  a  strong  presumption,  that  the  doctrine  is  rejected  by 
its  author.  To  this  I  know  it  will  be  objected,  that  it  is  hard  to 
condemn  a  man  for  what  he  deos  not  say.  But  then  it  ought  to 
be  remembered  that  a  faithful  witness  will  ieW  Xhe  whole  truth. 
If  a  man  tell  not  all  the  truth  in  the  matter — if  he  keep  back  a 
.part,  even  though  what  he  does  say  is  true,  he  is  a  false  witness. 
Jf. a  commentator  in  expounding  tiiose  Scriptures  which  set  forth 
any  leading  doctrine  of  Christianity,  leave  that  doctrine  out  of 
view  altogether,  he  is  Justly  esteemed  a  foe  to  ihe  doctrine.  Now 
Mr.  Barnes  was  bound  in  expounding  this  epistle,  to  make  the 
doctrine  of  the  imputed  righteousnessof  Christ,  and  particularly  his 
active  obedience,  the  prominent  feature  of  his  book.  'J'he  epistle 
to  the  Romans  is  a  treatige,  and  the  only  one  in  the  Bible,  for- 
mally, on  the  doctrine  of  justilication,  and  the  marvel  of  marvels 
is,  that  this  volume  of  exposition  does  not  once  present  it  distinctly 
and  clearly  to  the  reader.  "The  righteousness  of  Christ  [his 
fictive  and  passive  obedience]  imputed  to  us  and  received  by  faith 
alone,"  is  not  once  brouglit  distinctly  into  view  from  beginning  to 
end.  If  it  is,  I  am  much  mistaken;  for  after  a  careful  perusal  of 
the  whole,  and  an  oft  repeated  inspection  of  those  parts  where 


125 

this  doctrine  ouglit  to  be  the  radiant  and  the  rallying:  point,  I  con- 
fess myself  unable  to  find  it.  The  word  justification  is  sometimes 
used,  but  a  meaning  is  attached  to  it,  as  we  shall  see,  not  sanctioned 
by  Scripture  usage  nor  the  standards  of  our  church. 

2.  Proof  1,  is  a  part  of  the  Note  on  i.  17.  "  For  therein  is  the 
rig-hteousness  of  God  revealed,"  &c.  and  "  the  righteousness  of 
God''  is  made  to  be  "equivalent  to  God's  plan  of  justifying  men." 
He  had  before  mentioned  two  interpretations  of  the  phrase :  viz. 
that  it  means  the  attribute  ofGod^sju^iice;  and  his  goodness  or 
benevolence ;  both  which  he  rejects,  and  then  adopts  this,  which 
surely  bears  no  kind  of  resemblance  to  the  terms  to  which  it  ia 
declared  to  be  equivalent.  Yet  these  three,  he  avers,  are  the 
only  possible  interpretations.  How  it  is,  that  the  plain,  simple, 
common  sense  and  Bible  meaning  of  the  term  righteousness  should 
never  have  presented  itself  to  the  brother's  mind  is  to  me  matter 
of  astonishment.  Do  you  ask  what  that  isl  1  answer,  in  the 
fourth  meaning  given  to  the  Greek,  dikaiosiine,  by  Hedericus, 
viz.  "  Conformitas  cum  lege."  Conformity  with  law.  Compliance 
with  the  rule  of  right — obedience.  And  as  holy  obedience  includes 
the  moral  affection  of  the  heart,  the  assent  of  the  understanding 
and  consequent  action  of  the  whole  person  ;  so  the  Greek  word 
and  its  correspondent  hehve^w,  tsedek,  includes  such  affection:  and 
hence  they  sometimes  express  benevolence,  kindly  feeling.  The 
law  is  a  straight  line;  walking  in  the  line  marked  out  for  us  is 
rectitude,  straightness,  righteousness.  Deut.  vi.  25 — "  it  shall  be 
our  righteousness,  if  we  observe  to  do  all  these  commandments" — 
xxiv.  13,  "  it  shall  be  righteousness  unto  thee  before  the  Lord  thy 
God." — xxxiii.  19,  "  shall  they  offer  the  sacrifices  of  righteous- 
ness." Let  any  man  just  take  his  Bible  and  concordance  and  sit 
down  patiently  to  the  investigation,  and  he  will  be  surprised  at 
the  almost  universal  applicability  of  this  definition.  Such,  too,  is 
the  general  understanding  of  the  term.  Dr.  Ridgley,  Ml.  74,  say?, 
"the  righteousness  we  are  now  speaking  of,  must  be  something 
wrought  out  for  us,  by  one  who  stood  in  our  room  and  stead,  and 
was  aljle  to  pay  that  "debt  of  obedience."  And  in  the  note  Dr. 
Wilson  adds,  "'Righteousness  is  taken  ordinarily  to  signify  a  con- 
formity to  lavi's,  or  rules  of  right  conduct.  The  moral  law,  which 
is  both  distinguishable  by  the  moral  sense,  and  expressly  revealed, 
requires  perfect  and  perpetual  rectitude  in  disposition,  purpose, 
and  action.  Dr.  Gill,  on  the  place,  says,  it  is  "that  righteousness 
which  he  [Christ]  wrought  out  by  obeying  the  precepts,  and  bear- 
ing the  penalty  of  the  law."  A  multiplication  of  authorities  is 
useless  :  there  can  be  no  dispute  about  the  matter.  Righteousness 
is  "conformity  to  law."  And  when  spoken  of  God,  in  reference 
to  his  own  acts,  it  means  his  procedure  according  to  his  own  will, 
the  supreme  rule  of  right.  When  spoken  of  his  acts  and  doings 
for  the  benefit  of  men  the  same  general  idea  is  set  forth.  So  Paul 
speaks  of  "the  righteousness  of  God  being  unto  all  and  upon  all 
them  that  believe" — thai   is,  the  righteousness  which  Christ  said 

11* 


12G 

it  became  him  to  tulHl — his  obedience  to,  hia  compliance  with, 
law,  which  constitutes  the  title  to  life.  'J'his  it  is,  that  is  revealed 
in  the  gospel  troin  faith  to  faith  :  according  to  the  promise,  Isa. 
Ivi.  1, — ^'  for  my  salvation  is  near  to  come,  and  my  rigiitcoutness 
to  be  jevealed."  xlvi.  13.  "I  bring  near  my  righteousness;  it 
«haU  not  be  far  off,  and  my  salvation  shall  not  tarry."  In  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  he  commands,  "Hearken  unto  me,  ye  stout-hearted, 
.that  are  far  from  righteousness" — "ye  that  follow  after  righteous- 
11GSS  and  have  not  attained  to  it."  Rom.  ix.  30,  31,  32.  Now  what 
does  this  following  mean,  but  tiieir  vain  attempts  to  comply  with 
the  law^s  demands.  Still  righteousness,  compliance  with  law, 
was  far  off:  But,  "  My  righteousness  is  near,  my  salvation  is  gone 
.4<irth."  Isa,  li.  5.  In  a  thousand  texts  it  is  .clearly  stated  that 
rigiiteousness  is  the  title  to  life:  righteousness  the  actual  and  ac- 
tive obedience  to  law,  and  salvation  are  united  as  antecedent  and 
,consequent. 

That  righteousness  is  active  compliance  with  law  is  further 
evident  from  Paul's  whole  train  of  reasoning  here.  Let  us  ana- 
lyse it,  for  here  lies  the  soul  and  4ife  of  the  gospel.  First,  he 
says,  i.  16,  the  gospel  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  But 
what  is  it  in  the  gospel  that  gives  it  such  almighty  energy  to 
save?  Second  step  in  the  process:  v.  17.  It  reveals  righteous- 
ness; and  salvation — eternal  blessedness  is  the  just  reward  of 
righteousness.  But  whose  righteousness  is  it?  Man's!  No  ;  for 
man  could  not  perfectly  keep  or  comply  with  the  law,  and  perfect 
obedience  only  can  be  admitted  by  the  law  and  rewarded  with 
life.  No;  it  is  God's  righteousness;  the  very  same  which  he  has 
so  often  promised  to  his  people — "my  righteousness  shall  be  for 
ever" — "their  righteousness  is  of  me,  saith  the  Lord."  "I  bring 
near  my  righteousness."  But,  if  it  be  the  Lord's,  what  avails  it 
tons?  3.  It  becomes  ours  by  faith.  It  is  proffered  to  us  upon 
the  pledged  faithfulness  of  God  "  from  fiith,"  and  becomes  ours  by 
our  humble,  sincere,  and  true  reliance  upon  this  pledged  faith- 
fulness "  to  fiith,"  But  where  do  you  find  this  doctrine!  4.  In 
tiie  prophecy  of  Ilabakkuk,  ii.  4.  "  1'he  just  by/aith  shall  live.'* 
He  who  believes  in  the  promise  of  God,  wherein  life  or  salvation 
is  offered  on  the  ground  of  the  Saviour's  righteousness,  and  who 
thus  sets  to  his  seal  that  God  is  true,  and  thus  becomes,  in  deed 
and  truth,  united  to  Jesus,  being  renewed  and  enabled  thereto  by 
the  Hoy  Ghost  in  his  regenerating  influences — this  man  is  justi- 
fied by  his  faith  as  the  instrumental  prncnring  cavse^  and  by 
Christ's  righteousness  as  the  meritorious  rouse. 

On  this  quotation  from  the  prophet,  which  is  Paul's  text,  Mr. 
Birnes  and  I  differ  toto  cmlo.  He  maintains  tliat  the  point  of  the 
text  is  to  affirm  the  manner  in  which  men  live :  I  insist  that  it 
atlirms  the  manner  in  which  men  are  justified.  He  says,  "  it 
does  not  refer  originally  to  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith" — 
then  PafiTs  text  and  sermon  (like  many  another  unfortunate 
preacher's)  have  little,  if  any  connexion   wiih   each   other ;  for 


127 

really  I  tliiiik  lie  preaches  on  that  doctrine.  No,  says  Mr.  Barnes, 
"  but  Its  meaning  is  this  :  '  The  just  man,  or  the  riohteous  man, 
shall  live  by  his  confidence  in  God.' " 

This  mistake  as  to  the  text  of  Paul,  is  the  prime  cause  of  that 
want  of  perspicuity  and  system  which  pervades  the  whole  book. 
Now  let  us  look  into  the  njatter,  and  let  us  keep  one  precise  point 
in  view.  Mr.  Barnes  insists,  that  the  text  relates  to  the  manner 
of  living:  I,  that  it  relates  to  the  manner  of  justification.  And  I 
observe  that  the  prophet  is  speaking  of  the  Gospel  day.  Having  spo- 
ken of  the  Chaldee  persecutor,  his  mind  is  carried  forward  from 
his  watch  tower,  "  to  see  what  he  will  say  unto  me."  "And  the 
Lord  answered  me,  and  said,  Write  the  vision,  and  make  it  plain 
upon  tables,  that  he  may  run  that  readeth  it.  [And  yet  it  has  been 
misunderstood!]  For  the  vision  is  yet  for  an  appointed  time  ;  but 
at  the  end  it  shall  speak,  and  not  lie  :  though  it  tarry,  wail  tor  it ; 
because  it  will  surely  come,  it  will  not  tarry."  And  what  is  the 
vision!  What  is  the  glorious  doctrine,  by  the  reception  and  belief 
of  which,  verse  14,  "  the  earth  shall  be  filled  with  the  knowledge 
of  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the  sea!"  Verse  4. 
"  Behold,  his  soul  which  is  1  itled  up  is  not  upright  in  him"— the  protid, 
"who  follows  after  the  law  of  righteousness,"  "is  not  upright," 
righteous,  just,  justified — accepted  of  God  :  "  but" — what !  Why, 
exactly  the  opposite  of  this:  and  what  is  that!  Is  it  a  questio^i 
about  the  iiwnner  of  living,  or  about  being  upright  or  just?  As- 
suredly the  prophet  says  nothing  concerning  hoio  the  proud  might 
live;  but  he  speaks  of  his  want  of  righteousness,  "his  heart  is  not 
upright;'^  and  the  opposite  is  uprightness — "but  the  just  by  his 
faith  shall  live."  This  is  the  natural,  simple,  and  plain  translation 
of  the  words,  and  is  required  to  make  up  the  contrast  with  the 
previous  part  of  the  verse.  The  words  may  be  accommodated,  as 
Owen  says,  and  thus  express  the  idea  of  the  subsequent  life  of 
faith.  "  Because  the  justijied  by  faith,  do  also  walk  by  faith.  Yet 
the  position  of  the  terms,  strictly  require  them  to  express  the  man- 
ner of  their  becoming  just,  i.  e.  by  ftiith  hi  the  person  promised  in 
the  vision,  viz.  Christ.  A  Germane-English  friend  has  this  moment 
furnished  to  me  a  passage  or  two  from  Luther's  comment  on  this 
text:  which  sliows  that  he  understood  the  prophet  as  referring  to 
justification  through  faith  in  the  promised  Messiah.  Luther's 
complete  works,  Halle,  1741,  Vol.  VL  p.  ;^.157-58.— "  At  last, 
Ilabakkuk  finishes  this  sentence  of  the  table,  [verse  2]  with  the 
words,  '  But  the  just  shall  live  by  his  faith ;'  i.  e.  if  one  will  live 
and  be  just,  he  must  believe  the  promises  of  God;  vice  versa,  the 
unjust  dies  in  his  unbelief  If  you  will  live  and  be  saved,  you 
must  believe  this  writing  on  the  table,  that  Christ  w  ill  come  in  his 
kiogdom."  Verse  20. — "Here  you  see  that  the  prophets  have 
preached  the  faith  of  Christ,  as  well  as  we  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment; and  that  Habakkukis  even  so  bold  asto  condemn  all  works, 
and  ascribes  life  only  to  faith.  He  says  plainly,  the  unbeliever 
shdlljoot  succeed;  let  him  pray  and  work  until  death,  still  all  his 


128 

works  are  condemned,  that  they  are  of  no  use  toliim,  and  shall  not 
help  him;  and  the  believer  shall  live,  without  works,  by  his  tUith." 
But  a  better  authority  than  Luther,  we  have  in  the  Apostle  him- 
self, for  immediately  afier  stating  his  text,  he  proceeds  to  establish 
it,  by  negativing  the  only  other  way  of  justification,  and  that  which 
the  prophet  had  negatived  in  the  preceding  clause  of  the  verse, 
viz.  by  works.  PVom  this  to  the  19th  verse,  chap.  iii.  he  shows, 
by  an  induction  of  particulars,  that  works  cannot  secure  life,  by 
making  man  just  before  God;  and  concludes,  verse  20,  "Therefore 
by  the  deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his 
sight."  His  conclusion  is  manifestly  concerning  justification; 
and  this  is  Paul's  fifth  step.  He  has  now  demonstrated  that  man's 
righreousness — his  works — his  active  obedience  to  law — not  his 
endurance  of  penalty — but  his  active  obedience — cannot  secure  a 
sentence  of  justification  before  God.  Thus  is  set  aside,  as  utterly 
inadequate,  the  works,  the  active  obedience  of  men.  Clearly,  tiien, 
he  believed  that  the  righteousness  which  justifies,  is  compliance 
with  law;  but  man's  is  inadequate,  and  therefore  another's  must 
come  in  its  place.  Whose  shall  come  in  the  place  of  man's  obe- 
dience, or  works,  or  righteousness  1  Certainly  the  righteousness 
of  God,  which,  in  verse  17,  he  says  is  reveaied  in  the  Gospel,  and 
which  had  been  laid  aside  until  he  should  demonstrate  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  man's.  Therefore  he  here  takes  it  up.  "  But  now  the 
righteousness  of  God  without  the  law  is  manifest,"  &c.  This  is 
his  sixth  step  :  and  the  entire  process  of  his  reasoning,  shuts  us  up 
to  the  necessity  of  understanding  "  the  righteousness  of  God, 
which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,"  in  the  same  sense  as  we  under- 
stand the  righteousness  of  men  that  has  been  rejected ;  viz.  com- 
pliance— the  compliance,  or  active  obedience  of  Christ.  The 
seventh  step  is  the  medium  through  which  it  comes,  viz.  the  "  re- 
demption that  is  in  Christ  Jesus."  The  satisfaction  to  the  penal 
claims  of  law,  is  indispensable  to  theavailablenessof  his  rigliteous- 
ness,  properly  so  called:  and  hence,  it  is  the  same  faith  resting 
upon  the  atonement,  that,  in  the  strict  sense,  procures  pardon; 
which,  resting  on  the  righteousness  of  Jesus,  procures  justifica- 
tion. 

The  same  truth  is  established  by  the  contrast  in  x.  3,  4,  between 
the  righteousness  of  God  and  the  righteousness  of  man.  "  For 
they,  being  ignorant  of  God's  righteousness,  and  going  about  to 
establish  their  own  righteousness,  have  not  submitted  themselves 
to  the  righteousness  of  God.  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for 
righteousness  to  every  believer."  Here  God's  righteousness  and 
Christ's  righteousness  are  the  same :  and  from  the  contrast,  it  is 
evident  the  term  must  be  understood  in  the  same  sense,  viz.  con- 
formity with  law.  But  Christ  is  the  end — fulfilment,  by  his  per- 
fect obedience, — of  all  law — to  every  believer.  Unquestionably, 
the  righteousness  which  they  went  about  to  establish,  was  their 
own  works  of  obedience ;  therefore  Christ's  righteousness  is  his 
conformity  with  law ;  and  this  is  that  which  is  revealed  from  faith 


129 

to  faith.  Hence,  Jesus  Christ  is  said  to  be  made  of  God  unto  ns, 
wisdom  and  righteousness.  And  in  Jer.  xxiii.  6,  lie  is  called  "the 
Lord  our  rig-hteousness."  And  Isaiah  xlv.  24 — "  In  the  Lord  have 
I  righteousness  and  strength:"  and  Ixi.  10. — "He  hath  clothed 
me  with  tiie  garments  of  salvation,  he  hath  covered  me  with  the 
robe  of  righteousness,"  Rev.  xix.  8. — "  To  the  Church  was  granted, 
that  she  should  be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white ;  for  the 
fine  linen  is  the  righteousness  of  the  saints."  But  I  waste  words. 
Let  me  only  here  touch  the  objection  drawn  from  two  Scriptures. 
Rom.  V.  9.  "  Much  more  being  justified  by  his  blood :"  hence  it 
has  been  supposed  that  atonement,  or  redemption,  is  the  same  as 
justification.  Or  in  other  words,  that  it  is  Christ's  death,  and  not 
his  life  of  holy  obedience,  that  justifies  us.  Cut  I  reply,  that,  en 
to  haimali,  by  his  blood,  does  not  necessarily  mean  the  efficacious 
cause.  Yea,  it  rather  marks  the  instrumental  cause ;  for  there  is 
an  ellipsis  o^  through  faith,  as  it  is  in  iii.  25,  through  faith  in  his 
blood,  diates  pisteos  en  to  autou  IiMimati ;  and  marks  the  medium 
and  instrument.  And  I  admit  that  the  atonement  or  satisfaction 
by  death,  (which,  properly  speaking,  secures  pardon,)  is  indispen- 
sably necessary  to  the  justification  of  a  sinner;  inasmuch  as  with- 
out it,  the  righteousness,  or  active  obedien^e^  which  is  the  proper 
title  to  life,  cannot  be  available  to  him. 

The  other  passage  is  Phil.  ii.  8. — "  he  humbled  himself  and  be- 
came obedient  unto  death."  Here  brother  Barnes  has  been  car- 
ried away  by  the  English  translation.  He  thinks  this  an  evidence 
(p.  127)  that  Christ's  obedience  is  suffering  death — that  death  is 
that  to  which  he  paid  subjection.  But  the  sense  is,  he  became, 
or  rather  simply  he  was  submissive  (hupekoos  mechri  thanaton) 
until  death — submissive,  that  is,  to  the  law  of  God  in  all  things, 
until  active  obedience  was  finished  :  and  this  the  word  properly 
signifies,  and  so  is  it  generally  translated  in  the  New  Testament. 

Now,  Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  God's  people  are  righteous  in  the 
eye  of  the  lavv^  the  active  obedience  of  Christ  being  imputed  to 
tliem.  "  It  is  not  that  his  righteousness  becomes  oursy  This  is 
not  true;  and  there  is  no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be 
understood.;"  This  is  so  explicit  as  to  preclude  comment.  How 
different  this  from  Luther's  language  to  his  friend  Spenlein;  speak- 
ing of  Christ  he  says,  "  Ipse  suscepit  te  et  peccata  tua  fecit  sua, 
et  suam  justitiam  fecit  tuam ;  maledictus  qui  hsp^  non  credit." 
Epist.  An.  1516,  torn.  1.  Justifi.  28.  That  is,  "  He  himself  has 
taken  you.  and  made  your  sins  hisown,  and  has  inade  his  own 
righteousness  yours  ;  cursed  be  the  man  who  does  not  believe  it." 
And  Augustine  to  the  same  effect — *'  he  made  our  sins  to  be  his, 
that  he  might  make  Jiis  righteousness  to  be  ours."  P.  27. 

Under  proof  2,  he  affirms  that  men  are  "  regarded  and  treated 
as  if  they  had  kept  the  law,"  but  he  carefully  avoids  the  admis- 
sion of  Christ's  righteousness  passing  over  in  law  to  their  account 
and  constituting  the  ground  of  their  justification.  They  are  not 
righteous  at  all,  in  any  sense ;  but  only  treated  as  if  righteous. 


130 

The  idea  of  their  having  in  their  living  Surety  a  right  and  title 
to  a  sentence  of  justification  he  rejects.  Their  acceptance  "  must 
be  mere  favour,  and  as  a  matter,  not  of  right,  but  of  gift."  The 
believer  in  Jesus  has  no  right  to  heaven — did  I  not  say  truly — 
this  brother's  doctrine,  if  true,  u'ould  render  it  impossible  for  the 
believer  "  to  read  his  title  clear  to  mansions  in  the  skies  !" 

Proof  3.  Here  again  the  idea  of  a  title  to  heaven  flowing  from 
union  with  Jesus  is  rejected.  "  Not  as  if  they  had  a  claim" — "  if 
the  doctrine  of  Scripture  was,  that  the  entire  righteougnrss  of 
Christ  was  set  over  to  them,  was  really  and  truly  theirs,  and  was 
transferred  to  them  in  any  sense,  with  what  propriety  could  the 
apostle  say,  that  God  justified  the  ungodly?"  We  cannot  misun- 
derstand this.  Christ's  righteousness  is  not  transferred  in  any 
sense  to  his  believing  people — it  is  not  set  over  to  them  in  law — 
it  is  not  theirs.  His  meaning  is  unequivocally  certain  by  the  rea- 
son which  supports  it,  viz.  the  old,  standing,  Socinian  objection — 
I  say  it  with  grief  and  mortification — that  if  the  believer  hath  in 
Christ  a  title,  right,  or  claim  to  the  highest  rewards  of  heaven, 
then  there  is  no  grace  in  the  gospel.  Purchased  grace  !  what  an 
absurdity ! 

Proof  4.  Turn  back  to  the  quotation  from  p.  127.  There  is  the 
whole  comment  on  the  phrase  "  By  the  obedience  of  one."  On 
which  a  real  Calvinistic  Presbyterian  would  have  given  his  heart 
full  flow  and  let  his  pen  run  rampant.  But  there  you  have  it, 
text  and  comment,  in  five  brief  lines.  Now  I  ask  why  this  bre- 
vity? Why  is  that  by  which  many  are  made  righteous,  dismissed 
thus  cavalierly  ■?  Why  is  this,  which  he  admits  stands  opposed 
to  the  disobedience  of  Adam,  hurried  out  of  sight?  If  it  stands 
opposed,  is  it  not  the  opposite  of  Adam's  disobedience?  And  what 
is  the  opposite  of  disobedience?  is  it  not  obedience?  and  what  is 
disobedience  but  want  of  conformity  with  law?  Must  not  then  the 
obedience  which  is  the  opposite  of  this  be  conformity  with  law? — 
active  compliance  !  Oh !  how  could  my  brother  shut  his  eyes  against 
this  most  glorious  point  of  gospel  truth? — a  point  on  which  all  the 
bright  beams  of  the  Sun  of  Righteousness  converge  to  a  focus,  that 
might  make  the  eye  of  an  archangel  blench,  and  shrivel  like  a 
parched  scroll,  the  entire  legions  of  lost  spirits  who  can  never  say 
through  grace,  "  The  Lord  is  my  righteousness." 

But  so  it  is.  Admitting  the  truth  that  the  obedience  of  the  one 
is  Christ's,  and  that  it  includes  his  entire  work,  he  tries  to  turn 
it  off,  by  quoting  Phil.  ii.  3.  "  He — became  obedient  unto  deatli" 
— italicising  obedient  to  make  the  reader  think  that  all  Christ's 
work  consisted  in  suffering.  Ah !  this  Parthian  arrow  is  not  me- 
dicated with  Presbyterian  oil. 

On  the  last  quotation,  p.  2P2,  I  have  only  to  remark,  that  being 
a  comment  on  chap.  x.  iii. — "they  b'ing  ignorant  of  God's  right- 
eousness, and  going  about  to  establish  their  own  righteousin^ss" — 
it  is  very  strange,  that  a  commentator  should  say  (and  expect  his 
reader  to  believe  him,)  that,  "  Here  God's  plan  stands  opi^osod  to 


131 

their  efforts" — "  God's  plan" — what  a  phrase !  the  word  plan  is  not 
in  the  Bible,  and  I  doubt  whether  a  single  man  who  ever  read 
this  book  of  Notes,  knows  what  the  phrase  God^s  plan  means. 
Does  not  the  apostle  contrast  God's  or  Christ's  righteousness  and 
their  righteousness?  Why  should  the  meaning  be  hid  in  an  un- 
scriptural  phraseology  ?  And  how  could  he  say  "I  have  uniformly 
represented  the  doctrine  as  near  as  possible  in  the  language  of  the 
Scriptures?" 

But  it  is  time  we  should  look  into  our  standards.  Conf.  XL  {1. 
"  Those  whom  God  effectually  calleth,  he  also  freely  justitieth ; 
not  by  infusing  righteousness  into  them,  but  by  pardoning  their 
sins,  and  by  accounting  and  accepting  their  persons  as  righteous; 
not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  them,  or  done  by  tliem,  but  for 
Christ's  sake  alone  :  not  by  imputing  faith  itself,  the  act  of  believ- 
ing, or  any  other  evangelical  obedience  to  them,  as  their  righteous- 
ness: but  by  imputing  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ  unto 
them."  ^2.  "Faith,  thus  receiving  and  resting  on  Christ  and  his 
righteousness,"  &c.  §3.  "Christ,  by  his  obedience  and  death,  did 
fully  discharge  the  debt  of  all  those  that  are  thus  justified,  and  did 
make  a  proper,  real,  and  full  satisfaction,  to  his  Father's  justice  in 
their  behalf.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  he  was  given  by  the  Father  for 
them,  and  his  obedience  and  satisfaction  accepted  in  their  stead," 
&c.  Lar.  Cat.  70.  "Justification  is  an  act  of  God's  free  grace,  in 
w'hich  he  pardoneth  all  their  sin,  accepteth  and  accounleth  their 
persons  righteous  in  his  sight;  not  for  any  thing  wrought  in  them, 
or  done  by  them,  but  only  for  the  perfect  obedience  and  full  satis- 
faction of  (Christ,  by  God  imputed  to  them,  and  received  by  faith 
alone."     See  also  71  and  72,  and  Short.  Cat.  33. 

You  will  see,  1 — That  the  satisfaction  rendered  by  Christ's 
death,  is  uniformly  distinguished  from  the  obedience,  or  active 
righteousness — "  the  obedience  and  satisfaction  of  Christ" — "  his 
obedience  and  deatii" — "his  obedience  and  satisfaction" — "  perfect 
obedience,  and  full  satisfaction" — "by  his  obedience  and  death." 
And  this  is  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case;  for  the  preceptive 
and  penal  claims  of  law  are  entirely  distinct.  Now,  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  this  distinction,  observe,  2 — The  obedience,  as  well 
as  the  satisfaction,  the  life,  or  active  righteousness,  as  well  as  the 
death,  in  its  efficacy  to  make  satisfaction,  are  imputed  to  his  peo- 
ple; "the  perfect  obedience  and  full  satisfaction,  by  God  imputed 
to  them" — "imputing  his  righteousness  to  them."  3.  The  result 
of  God's  imputing  Christ's  satisfaction,  his  death,  to  them  is,  that 
they  are  free  from  the  penal  claim  of  law ;  it  has  its  satisfaction; 
and  thus  Jesus  hath  a  right  to  their  release — pardon  he  has  freely 
to  bestow :  "  he  pardoneth  all  their  sin" — "  by  pardoning  their 
sin."  4.  The  result  of  imputing  Christ's  obedience,  his  righteous- 
ness, to  them  is,  they  are,  not  simply  "  treated  as  if  righteous,"  as 
brother  Barnes  says,  but  accounted^  righteous;  the  righteousness 
of  Christ  is  theirs — they  have  received  it,  and  it  is  set  down  to 
their  account — he  "  accepteth  and  accounteth  their  persons  righ- 


i;j2 

teous  in  his  siglit."  Contraries  never  can  agree ;  this  and  the 
"Notes"  can  never  he  reconciled. 

On  the  ♦*  Defence''  here  I  have  little  to  say.  The  first  three 
observations  are  assertions  that  he  has  not  denied,  that  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  works  are  imputed;  that  his  active  obedience  is  im- 
puted ;  that  his  people  are  riorhteous  in  the  sight  of  the  law.  Now 
I  leave  yon  to  judge  whether  I  have  not  most  incontestably  proved 
the  opposite  of  the  last  two.  As  to  the  first,  he  does  say,  the  bene- 
fits are  imputed;  i.  e.  what  he  calls  the  benefits;  but  he  assured- 
ly excludes  the  glorious  benefit  of  a  title,  a  rights  to  heavenly  joys, 
as  given  to  us  in  the  imputation  of  the  Saviour's  righteousness  to 
us.  And  as  to  the  third,  he  never  admits  that  believers  are  right- 
eous, by  Christ's  righteousness  becoming,  theirs ;  it  is  not  set  over 
to  them — it  is  not  transferred  to  them  in  any  case. 

His  fourth  observation,  and  summing  up  of  the  whole,  is  a  repeti- 
tion, and  contains  intrinsic  and  express  evidence  of  the  truth  and  jus- 
tice of  the  whole  charge.  Paul,  according  to  what  is  here  said,,  is  not 
rig-hteous — Jesus  Christ's  righteousness  is  not  reckoned  to  Paul- 
it  is  not  his  in  any  sense — he  is  treated  as  ?/  righteous — Christ 
died  in  Paul's  place,  but  he  did  not  suffer  the  punishment  due  to 
Paul — the  penal  chmn  has  never  been  liquidated;  and  although 
in  terms  he  says,  "justice  has  been  satisfied,"  yet  his  whole  sys- 
tem denies  it.  Nothing  can  be  more  explicitly  asserted,  than  his 
doctrine,  that  the  sufferings  of  Christ  were  not  penal — were  not 
punishment.  Now  it  was  penal  suffering  that  the  law  required  of 
Paul,  and  this  requisition  has  never  been  met,  according  to  Mr. 
Barnes.  Justice,  therefore,  is  not  satisfied.  In  fact,  it  is  very 
nearly  in  terms  a  contradiction,  to  say  that  justice  has  any  claim 
of  suffering,  and  yet  that  the  suffering  claimed  is  not  penal.  How 
could  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  satisfy  the  claims  of  justice  against 
Paul,  if,  as  Mr.  Barnes  abundantly  maintains,  his  sins  were  not  le- 
gally imputed  to  Christ,  and  the  punishment  of  them  inflicted  upon 
him  7  If  it  was  not  legally  right — if  there  was  not  a  proper,  legal 
claim  of  suffering  against  Jesus — if  he  was  not  in  justice  and  in 
laio  bound,  anrl  liable  tosuffer,  was  it  right  for  God  to  put  that  cup 
into  his  hand  \  Or  would  not  that  be  the  definition  of  oppression, 
injustice,  and  cruelty? 

Proceed  we  to  the  Xth  Charge,  viz:  Mr.  Barnes  also  teaches, 
in  opposition  to  the  standards,  that  "justification  is  simply  pardon." 

Proof  1.  pp.  28,  29.  (already  quoted,  p.  17,)  "  The  phrase  righte- 
ousness of  God  is  equivalent  to  GoiVs  plan  of  jiistifi/ing  wen  ; 
his  scheme  of  declaring  them  just  in  the  sight  of  the  Into  or  of 
acquitting  them  from  punishment^  and  admitting  them  to  favour^ 

2.  "  In  regard  to  this  plan,  il  may  be  observed  (4)  It  is  not  that 
his  righteousness  becomes  ours.  This  is  not  true ;  and  there  is 
no  intelligible  sense  in  which  that  can  be  understood.  But  it  is 
God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin,  and  for  treating  us  as  if  we  had  not 
committed  it." 

3.  p.  110.  "  Being  now  justified.  Pardoned  ;  accepted  as  his 
friends. 


133 

4.  p.  124.  Unto  justification.  The  work  of  Christ  is  designed 
to  have  reference  to  many  offences,  so  as  to  produce  pardon  or 
justification  in  regard  to  them  all,"  The  comment  on  chap.  v. 
19. — "For  as  by  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righteous,"  is  thus 
summed  up,  p.  127,  128:  "The  sense  of  the  verse  is  this:  'As 
in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  one,  the  many  became  sinners,  with- 
out explaining  the  mode  in  which  it  is  done;  so  the  many  became 
righteous  in  the  mode  and  on  the  terms  which  are  explained"! 
Righteous.     Justified.     Free  from  condemnation.'  " 

5.  p.  182.  "/if  is  God  that  justifieth.  That  is,  who  has  par- 
doned them,  and  admitted  them  to  his  favour;  and  pronounced 
them  just  in  his  sight." 

6.  p.  217.  "  The  moment  a  sinner  believes^  therefore,  he  is  jus- 
tified ;  his  sins  are  pardoned;  and  he  is  introduced  into  the  favour 
of  God." 

Pardon  is  a  release  from  obligation  to  suffer  punishment.  No 
man  can  be  pardoned  until  after  he  is  guilty.  He  must  be  in  a 
state  of  condemnation  to  whom  pardon  is  extended.  And  in  this 
state  all  human  beings  are  by  nature  "bound  over  to  the  wrath 
of  God."  Pardon  is  the  release  of  this  obligation.  A  pardoned 
man  cannot  be  again  brought  under  obligation  to  wrath  for  the 
same  offence.  That  is  mere  respite;  but  pardon  is  an  act  of  the 
sovereignty,  wherein  a  pledge  of  law  and  truth  is  given,  that  the 
offender  shall  never  be  punished  for  that  sin. 

Now  that  Mr.  Barnes  makes  the  whole  of  justification  consist  in 
pardon,  forgiveness>  remission  of  sins,  is  just  as  true  as  the  asser- 
tion I  made  in  the  ninth  charge.  For  if  he  rejects,  as  I  suppose  is 
proved,  the  active  obedience  of  Christ,  of  course  there  is  nothing 
left  but  pardon.     But  let  us  attend  to  the  other  proofs  in  order. 

1.  He  makes  acquitting  them  from  punishment,  and  admitting 
them  to  favour,"  equivalent  to  justification.  He  makes  the  word  to 
justify  to  mean  "to  treat  as  if  innocent,  to  regard  as  innocent,  to 
pardon,  to  forgive."     This  is  the  charge  in  terms. 

2.  Here  he  denies  that  the  righteousness  becomes  ours,  but  that 
it  is  God's  plan  for  pardoning  sin.  This  is  again  plain  and  positive. 

3.  Being  now  justified.  "Pardoned;  accepted  as  his  friends." 
In  express  terms,  pardon  and  justification  are  made  to  be  synony- 
mous. 

4.  Again,."^pardon  or  justification"  are  synonymes.  "  Righteous. 
Justified.     Free  from  condemnation."     Equally  explicit. 

5.  It  is  God  that  justifieth.  That  is,  "  who  has  pardoned  them." 
There  is  here  a  fugitive  expression,  which  seems  to  admit  some- 
thing more  than  pardon — "  pronounced  Xhemjust  in  his  sight."  If 
this  were  not  irreconcileable  with  the  previous  representations,  it 
might  be  admitted  as  evidence  that  the  active  obedience  is  in- 
cluded in  his  idea  of  justification.  But  among  contradictory  witness- 
es, equally  respectable,  we  must  be'determined  by  the  majority. 

6.  Here  again  justification  and  pardon  are  terms  of  equal  import 


134 

The  testimenies  quoted  and  cited  under  the  preceding  charge 
are  the  same  on  which  I  rely  here  to  evince  the  difference  in  our 
standards  between  justification  and  pardon.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  add  any  further  remarks  illustrative  of  their  meaning.  No  man 
can  read  them  without  perceiving  that  pardon  has  reference  to  the 
penalty  of  law — it  is  its  remission  ;  and  tliat  justification  regards 
the  precept  and  amounts  to  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  judge 
that  the  person  is  legally  possessed  of  the  righteousness  of  the 
law,  and  is  therefore,  on  the  score  of  justice  and  right,  entitled  to 
the  rewards  of  holy  action — of  obedience. 

The  scriptural  sense  of  this  term  cannot  be  determined,  but  by 
reference  to  Scripture :  for  justification  is  a  modern  Latin  word, 
coined  to  express  a  particular  thought.  We  must,  therefore,  look 
to  the  original  terms  of  Scripture,  if  we  will  have  the  truth.  Dr. 
Owen,  on  Justification,  p.  110,  observes,  that  "  in  no  place  or  on 
any  occasion  is  it  [the  Hebrew  tsadah]  used  in  that  congregation 
wherein  it  denotes  an  aciion  towards,  another,  in  any  other  sense, 
but  to  absolve,  acquit,  esteem,  declare,  pronounce  righteous,  or  to 
impute  righteousness,  which  is  i\ie  forensic  sense  of  the  word  we 
plead  for ;:  that  is  its  constant  use  and  signification,  nor  doth  k 
ever  signify  to  make  inherently  righteous ;  much  less  to  pardon 
or  forgive;  so  vain  is  the  pretence  of  some,  that  justification  con- 
sists only  in  the  pardon  of  sin,  which  is  not  signified  by  the  word 
in  any  one  place  of  Scripture."  To  sustain  the  truth  of  his  remark, 
he  adduces  a  great  many  instances,  and  explains  the  only  one 
doubtful  case.  He  then  takes  up  the  Greek  word,  dikaioo,  and 
says,  "  Neither  iis  this  word  used  in  any  good  author  whateverj 
to  signify  the  making  of  a  man  righteous  by  any  applications  tq 
produce  internal  righteousness  in  him:  but  either  to  absolve  and 
acquit,  to  judge,  esteem,  or  pronounce  righteous ;  or  on  the  con- 
trary to  condemn^  He  quotes  Suidas,  who  says,  "/f  hath  two- 
signijications,  to  punish  and  to  account  righteous^ 

The  "  defence"  suggests  three  remarks.  1st.  The  writer  seems 
here,  and  in  many  other  places  to  confound  innocence  and  right- 
eousness. *'  God  determines  to  treat  him  hereafter  as  a  righteous 
man,  or  as  if  he  had  not  sinned."  Now,  innocence  is  freedom 
from  guilt — the  state  and  condition  of  a  moral  being,  who  has  not 
tranggres&ed.  It  is  rather  a  negative  than  a  positive  quality  or 
condition.  Adam,  the  moment  of  his  creation  was  innocent. 
Righteousness  implies  positive  quality,  activity  in  compliance 
with  law;  and  if  the  law  prescribed  a  course  of  action  and  pro- 
posed a  reward,  the  compliance  must  cover  the  whole  course — 
the  obedience  must  be  entire  and  positive,  in  order  to  its  being 
entitled  to  the  reward.  Adam  had  rectitude  of  nature,  and  was 
innocent,  but  he  was  not  righteous — he  had  not  that  positive  obe- 
dience to  which  life  was  promised.  Justification  is  the  judge's 
declaration  that  a  man  has  this,  and  is  justly  entitled  to  the  stipu- 
lated reward.  This  all  truly-regenerated  persons — real  be- 
lievers, have  in  Christ  Jesus  their  surety  and  friend,  and  God  the 
Father  declares  the  fact — he  justifies  them.     The  second  remark 


135 

19^  that  justificatioh  is  an  act.  It  is  done  at  once,  and  henceforth, 
and  for  ever,  the  justified  man  remains  bo.  TJie  act  of  justificai* 
tion  may  be  spoken  of  again  and  again  ;  and  the  sinner  will  be  in 
the  greatt^day  pronounced  just.  But  the  act  of  justification  is  an 
eternal  act,  it  is  once  andjor  ever.  Not  so  pardon  to  men.  This 
is  repeated  and  repeated ;  not  indeed  in  reference  to  the  same 
sin.  But  as  men  in  this  state  are  perpetually  failing  and  offend- 
ing, they  as  perpetually  are  suing  for  and  receiving  forgiveness. 

My  third  remark  is,  that  in  the  very  defence,  he  gives  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  the  charge.  The  very  concluding  sentence  proves 
it.  "In  the  very  passages  adduced  by  the  prosecutor  on  this 
charge,  I  have  taught  that  God  admits  the  sinner  to  favour,  and 
treats  him  as  if  he  had  not  sinned,  or  were  righteous."  Here  is 
a  reiteration  of  the  very  error  charged,  viz.  that  not  sinning  and 
righteousness  are  the  same  thing.  Why  did  he  not  affirm  that 
God  accounts  the  believer  righteous,  because  of  "  the  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  imputed  to  him,  and  received  by  faith  alone  1" 
Simply  because  it  is  opposed  to  his  views :  he  does  not  believe 
that  his  righteousness  becomes  ours,  in  any  sense. 

And  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  we  are  through  the  protracted  argu- 
ment of  this  important  case.  It  has  been  long*  and  laborious :  and 
for  the  patient  attention  which  has  characterised  your  proceed- 
ings, since  the  discussion,  I  heartily  thank  you:  and  from  it,  I 
augur  favourably  as  to  the  results.  Yet  as  the  magnitude  of  its 
importance  rises  upon  us,  you  will  bear  with  me  a  little  Ityiger  in 
a  few  observations,  chiefly  upon  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
your  arriving  at  a  decision  equally  accordant  with  truth  and 
charity :  the  results  likely  to  follow  ;  and  the  solemn  responsi- 
bilities that  lie  upon  you. 

The  difficulties  admit  of  classification.  1st.  Those  which 
exist  intrinsically  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  2dly.  Those  which 
are  extrinsic.  And  3d.  Such  as  are  thrown  in  your  way  by  the 
abilities  and  skilful  arrangements  and  arguments  of  the  appellant. 

I.  Intrinsic.  There  are  two.  1st.  The  contradictions,  at  least 
apparently  so,  in  the  book  itself  You  are,  I  trust,  convinced 
that  such  do  exist;  probably  you  are  aware  that  attempts  were 
made  in  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia,  to  perplex  the  subject  by 
them.  It  was  alleged  that  if  error  was  taught,  the  opposing  truth 
was  also  taught.  But  now  if  this  were  a  sufficient  defence, 
would  an  errOrrst  ever  be  condemned  1  Would  not  a  Wily  dis- 
putant always  take  care  to  throw  in  some  terms  significant  of  the 
true  doctrine,  for  the  very  purpose  of  providing  a  shelter?  It 
must  certainly  be  known  to  all  conversant  with  the  history  of 
these  very  errors,  tliat  this  has  ever  been  the  course  of  their  advo- 
cates. They  have"  distinguished  themselves  by  their  ability  in 
the  use  of  terms  equivocal  and  therefore  capable  of  an  orthodox, 
as  well  as  a  heterodox  meaning.  In  rallying  a  routed  army,  and 
securing  their  retreat,  there  is  often  more  generalship  displayed 
than  in  gaining  a  victory.  The  retreat  of  the  ten  thousand 
Greeks,  entwined   round  the  brow  of  Xenophon  laurels   more 


136 

enduring  than  Caesar  gathered  on  the  plains  of  Pharsalia.  The 
true  explanation  of  these  inconsistencies  has  been  already  pointed 
out,  viz.  that  a  man  trained  in  the  ecclesiastical  literature  of  the 
Presbyterian  church  cannot  write  at  all  without  using  somB 
orthodox  terms :  a  new  nomenclature  must  be  introduced  for  the 
new  doctrine,  before  the  appearance  of  orthodoxy  can  entirely  J|^^ 
ibrsake  the  writings  of  its  advocates.  ^ 

The  second  intrinsic  difficulty  is  in  the  subject  under  discussion. 
Some  of  their  points  run  near  tlie  regions  of  metaphysics ;  and 
men  versed  in  ecclesiastical  controversies  know,  that  errorists 
love  to  lurk  in  the  mists  that  hang  on  the  mountain's  brow, 
whence  they  may  descend.  Centaur  like,  make  incursions  and  in- 
roads upon  the  peaceful  inhabitants  of  the  plain,  and  vanish  away 
into  their  metaphysical  nebulae.  The  possibility  of  being  involved 
in  such  difficulties,  has  already  been  alleged  as  a  reason  why  our 
plain,  common  sense  eldership  shall  not  judge  in  such  cases.  But 
this  court  will,  I  hope,  bear  in  mind,  that  the  essence  of  the  whole 
controversy  lies  in  a  few  leading  and  plain  truths,  with  which  the 
minds  of  all  Presbyterians  are  in  a  good  degree  familiar.  Let  us 
only  be  guarded  against  the  possibility  of  being  led  into  the  fogs, 
and  we  have  nothing  to  fear. 

II.  The  extrinsic  difficulties  are  much  more  embarrassing,  be-  • 
cause  they  lie  in  the  spirit  of  the  age.  (1.)  It  rs  a  spirit  of  free 
inquiry ;  and  this  very  characteristic,  which  constitutes  the  glory 
of  the  age,  is  also  in  imminent  danger  of  becoming  its  disgrace  and 
ruin.  We  think,  or  seem  to  think,  we  cannot  give  evidence  of 
independent  thought,  unless  we  treat  with  scorn  the  thoughts 
and  opinions  of  our  fathers.  All  past  ages  were  bound  in  mental 
manacles ;  the  present  is  the  only  age  which  has  burst  away 
from  the  forms  and  symbols  of  cloistered  and  hooded  orthodoxy, 
and  taken  a  bold  and  decided  stand  on  the  side  of  mental  inde- 
pendence. What!  bind  our  souls  in  chains  forged  in  the  dark 
ages  at  Westminster!  Cramp  down  the  elastic  spirit  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  within  the  framework  of  the  Cromwellian  age  !  ! 
Yes,  Mr.  Moderator,  this  spirit  of  self-sufficiency,  under  the  spe- 
cious garb  of  freedom  of  opinion,  is  becoming  alarmingly  violent; 
it  is  assuming  a  tittle  of  the  features  it  displayed  thirty  years  ago 
in  France.  The  most  fell  of  all  persecuting  spirits  is  the  bigotry 
of  liberalism.  And  you  will  find  no  small  difficulty  in  resisting 
the  violence  of  popular  clamours,  if  you  pursue  an  even  forward 
course.  The  whole  mass  of  irreligion  is  violent  against  eccle- 
siastical discipline.  The  whole  meretricious  free-thinkers  of  the 
day  are  on  the  side  of  error  ;  and  so  it  always  has  been.  But,  (2) 
you  see  this  in  the  tendency  to  the  anarchy  of  popular  govern- 
ment by  mobs.  Over  otir  entire  country  there  prevails  a  power- 
ful epidemic,  attended  often  with  a  spasmodic  excitability — a  kind 
of  moral  cholera,  that  seems  to  disregard  the  persons  of  men,  and 
seize  the  temperate  as  well  as  the  intemperate.  The  state  and 
the  church  are  agitated  by  it.  What  is  a  mob,  but  an  appeal  to 
the  fountains  of  power  in  the  people,  immediately ^  and  irrespec- 


137 

lively  of  the  legitimate  organs  of  action  1  And  do  we  not  see  the 
same  things  attempted  in  our  church  ?  and  in  reference  to  this 
very  case  too?  What  is  the  publication  of  a  Defence  before  a 
word  of  argument  is  published  on  the  other  side,  but  an  appeal  to 
\he  people — io  popular  feeling  ?  What  mean  tliese  public  con- 
gregational meetings,  to  condemn  the  legitimate  actions  of  the 
legitimate  organs  of  your  church?  "  Is  not  this  the  mob  spirit? 
Now,  Mr,  Moderator,  you  must  dare  this  menace,  if  you  mean  to 
be  faithful  to  Zion  and  her  King.  (3)  But  there  is  a  third  diffi- 
culty before  you.  Money  is  powerfully  corrupting  in  its  influ- 
ence ;  and  the  present  aspect  of  our  church  and  of  the  world  pre- 
sents strong  temptations  to  monied  men  to  use  the  power  they 
have  by  it,  in  governing  the  church.  Her  charitable  institutions, 
her  glory  and  defence,  yet  open  this  door  to  temptation.  If  you 
are  stern  to  the  cause  of  truth,  and  thereby  offend  rich  and  liberal 
free-thinking  Christians,  or  reputable  men  of  the  world,  will  not 
your  Boards  of  Education  and  Missions  suffer  ?  Will  not  such  as 
are  opposed  to  strict  orthodoxy,  and  to  the  trammels  of  creeds  and 
confessions,  and  to  what  they  are  pleased  to  call  ecclesiastical 
tyranny,  set  their  faces  against  you,  and  combine  together  and 
put  down  your  Boards  and  Theological  Schools  by  starvation,  or 
by  erecting  voluntary  associations  in  the  form  of  Education  So- 
cieties, Missionary  Societies,  and  even  Theological  Seminaries  1 
And  may  you  not  see  the  entire  business  of  training  and  sending 
forth  your  ministry,  taken  out  of  your  hands,  by  the  mere  force  of 
money  ?  This  difficulty  also  will  call  upon  you  to  brace  up  your 
moral  nerves  for  the  solemn  vote  you  are  soon  about  to  give. 

III.  Among  the  difficulties  thrown  around  you  by  the  skill  of 
the  appellant,  mSiy  be  named,  (l.)The  allegation  that  the  charges 
are  in  some  instances  inferential,  and  that  no  man  is  responsible 
for  the  inferences  drawn  by  others  from  his  doctrine.  Under  the 
eighth  charge,  brother  Barnes  uses  this  argument,  and  sustains 
himself  by  authority  of  the  Assembly's  minutes,  vol.  V.  page  220. 
And  I  should  not  say  a  word  on  the  doctrine  he  sets  forth  here  in 
the  name  of  the  Assembly,  (because  1  rest  nothing  upon  mere  in- 
ference, in  the  charges  or  proof,)  had  he  not  made  a  good  deal  of 
it.  He  thinks  that  if  charges  may  be  brought  by  inference,  no 
man  is  safe ;  character  is  dependent  upon  false  logic ;  and  he  calls 
upon  the  courts  to  crush  such  tyranny.  But  now,  to  be  calm ; 
every  man  is  accountable  for  all  legitimate  inferences  that  may 
be  drawn  from  his  language.  If,  indeed,  when  he  sees  the  in- 
ference to  be  fairly  drawn,  and  denies  and  rejects  the  principles 
and  its  results,  he  is  of  course  not  chargeable.  But,  if  he  hold  to 
the  principle  or  language,  from  which  mischievous  consequences 
follow,  he  must  bear  those  consequences.  If  a  man  utter  words  that 
give  ground  to  unavoidable  inferences,  injurious  to  the  character 
of  his  neighbour,  he  may  be  prosec4ited  for  slander;  and  if  so,  it 
is  for  the  jury,  not  for  him  to  say,  whether  the  inferences  are  un- 
avoidable, and  the  injury  must  follow.  They  will  never  allow 
him  to  interpret  his  own  language.     If  it  is  capable  of  an  inter- 

^  12* 


138 

prelation,  according  to  the  ordinary  meaning  and  use  of  termp, 
which  is  not  injurious,  they  are  bound  to  put  (,n  it  the  most 
favourable  construction.  "  Charity  Ihinketh  no  evil."  But  if,  on 
tbe  contrary,  all  the  circumstances  being  considered,  they  think 
the  words  will  bear  no  other  construction  ;  or  that  the  inferences, 
injurious  to  his  neighbour,  will  inevitably  be  drawn  by  every  per- 
son hearing  or  reading  the  language,  they  will  find  for  the  plaintiff. 
!So,  if  an  author's  words  are  capable  of  an  orthodox  meaning,  we  are 
bound  in  charity  to  put  upon  them  that  meaning;  but  if  we  can.' 
not  do  it,  we  cannot  be  bound;  the  only  plain  sense  of  the  terms 
must  govern  us.  This  is  the  sense  of  tlie  Assembly.  They  never 
intended  that  a  man's  simple  assertion,  that  when  he  affirmed 
there  are  not  three  persons  in  the  Godhead,  he  only  meant  there 
were  not  three  Gods,  shall  be  received  as  an  evidence  that  he  did 
not  teach  Socinian  doctrine.  Adopt  such  a  rule.  Let  every  man 
have  the  right  of  explaining  his  own  terms,  and  who  will  ever  be 
convicted  of  any  error  that  will  bring  down  censure  upon  liim  1 
Would  Arius  or  Pelagius  ever  thus  have  been  condemned  1  Did 
not  they  claim  the  right  of  explaining  ?  And  were  they  allowed 
it  ]  The  principle  which  Mr.  Barnes  contends  for,  would  indeed 
put  an  end  to  all  prosecutions  for  error  ;  but  it  would  put  out  for 
ever  the  light  of  the  church's  testimony  against  false  doctrine. 

2.  It  doubtless  will  be  expected  that  I  should  take  some  notice 
farther  of  the  charges  made  by  the  author,  in  the  language  of  his 
Notes.  And  certainly,  if  a  man  take  away  the  offence,  we  ought 
to  be  satisfied.  But  you  will  bear  in  n)ind,  that  whilst  he  has 
made  some  real  improvements  in  phraseology,  he  has  also  said 
that  he  has  not  changed  one  sentiment,  lie  has  simply  varnished 
the  pill  that,  in  the  taking,  its  bitterness  may  not  be  so  offensive. 
You  will  therefore,  certainly,  not  be  influenced  in  your  decision 
by  this  consideration.  And  more  especially,  because,  even  if  real 
changes  were  made,  so  as  to  remove  every  erroneous  sentiment 
f.om  the  book,  still  no  present  statements  of  his  can  justly  consti- 
tute any  basis  for  your  decision  on  a  question  of  appeal.  Here 
nothing  but  the  doctrines  of  the  book,  as  it  was  originally  taken 
up,  can  come  into  view.  On  this  basis  afone  the  judgment  of  this 
Assembly  must  be  formed.  If  you  shall  find  the  errors  taught  in- 
deed, which  are  laid  in  charge,  you  will  say  so,  by  sustaining  the 
d  -cisicn  of  the  Synod.  Then,  after  that,  you  may  bear  confes- 
sions and  weigh  the  value  of  amendments.  If  Mr.  Barnes  will 
th^n  come  forward  and  confess  the  truth,  and  renounce  the  errors 
which  you  will  have  condemned,  my  soul  will  he  glad,  and  my 
heart  will  rejoice.  But  the  question  ofris^hf — when  you  respond 
to  the  interrogations,  do  the  proofs  adduced  by  the  prosecutor 
establish  his  positions — on  the  question  of  right  and  justice,  con- 
cessions have  no  plea  ;  forgiveness  must  follow  amendment,  and 
be  subsequent  to  condemnation.  So  soon  as  j^/s^/ce  has  finished 
1  e '  work,  then,  and  not  before,  let  her  retire  from  the  throne,  and 
then,  and  not  till  then,  let  mercy  occupy  it.  And  if  there  shall 
be  any  business  for  her  to  do,  in  the  name  of  the  great  King  let 


130 

her  do  it.  But  let  her  not  attempt  to  usurp  the  place  of  justice,  6e- 
fore  she  has  finished  her  work,  lest  in  her  bowels  of  compassion  for 
one,  she  inflict  wounds  deep  and  deadly  upon  the  whole  church. 

3.  A  third  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  a  correct  decision  is, 
the  allegation  of  the  appellant,  that  these  sentiments  were  always 
held  and  tolerated  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Now,  however 
plausible  his  defence  here,  and  it  is  so  in  a  high  degree,  yet  you 
will  observe  it  contains  a  severe  thrust  at  the  character  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church.  It  insinuates  that  she  glories  in  an  ortho- 
dox creed,  but  like  another  body  that  might  be  named,  winks  at  a 
heterodox  clergy;  that  she  is  friendly  to  the  broad  and  liberal 
Christianity,  which  lets  go  all  the  truth  in  detail,  whilst  she  glo- 
ries over  it  in  the  aggregate.  Now,  if  this  insinuation  be  correct; 
if  such  latitude  of  opinion  (under  the  plausible  pretext  of  free  in- 
quiry,) be  allowed,  and  has  been  always  allowed,  that  a  man  may 
reject  the  covenants  and  deny  imputation ;  that  he  may  hold  all 
the  errors  proved  here,  and  yet  be  a  good  Presbyterian — if  such 
is  the  deceptive  system  we  are  under,  then  the  sooner  we  shall  be 
torn  into  shreds  the  better.  Let  no  union  of  knaves  in  the  bond 
of  such  hypocrisy,  be  called  a  Presbyterian  churcli.  Such  never 
can  be  a  bulwark  of  truth.  But  I  insist  on  it  that  this  is  a  slander. 
The  Presbyterian  church  has  always  believed  her  own  doctrines. 
She  has  honestly  professed  them,  and  zealously  maintained  them, 
and  is  not  now  prepared  to  abandon  them,  and  put  her  light  under 
a  bushel. 

4.  But  fourthly,  brother  Barnes  seems  to  think  that  between  us 
there  is  no  substantial  difference — the  substantial  facts  of  the 
case  he  holds,  just  as  I  do.  It  is  only  a  dispute  about  words ;  at 
most  a  difficulty  in  philosophy :  And  this  he  has  repeated  so  often, 
and  reiterated  with  such  frequency  as  satisfies  me  he  really  has 
worked  himself  into  the  occasional  belief  of  it.  That  he  wishes 
you  to  believe  it,  I  have  no  doubt.  He  feels  his  cause  resting 
tor  success  in  this  precise  attempt.  If  he  can  induce  this  vene- 
rable body  to  think,  that  these  charges  relate  to  minor  and  com- 
paratively trifling  matters,  his  point  is  gained.  Gallio  will  dis- 
miss the  parties,  that  he  may  attend  to  the  weightier  concerns  of 
his  government:  such  as  to  determine  the  exact  amount  of  relative 
criminailty  between  A  and  B,  in  an  assault ;  or  whether  C  or  D 
displayed  the  least  or  most  villany  in  a  trade  about  lands  or  houses. 

You  must,  I  am  persuaded,  have  observed  that  this  is  Mr. 
Barnes'  main  object  in  his  entire  defence.  We  agree,  says  he,  in 
the  substantial  facts  of  the  case — there  is  no  difference  but  in 
terms  and  modes  of  explanation.  But  now,  Mr.  Moderator,  if  this 
be  so;  if  brother  Barnes  and  those  who  think  with  him  do  sub- 
stantially agree  with  the  other  side ;  and  if  we  hold  the  phraseo- 
logy and  the  modes  of  explanation,  which  are  set  forth  in  the 
standards,  why  will  our  brethren  introduce  new  terms  and  modes 
of  explanation,  to  the  utter  destruction  of  peace  and  harmony  1  If 
we  are  the  weak  brethren,  who  are  made  to  stumble  at  terms, 
and  are  grieved,  and  injured,  and  wounded  by  new  phraseology, 


140 

which  means  substantially  the  same,  where  is  charity  1    Will  she 
insist  on  the  new  nomenclature,  or  the  new  philosophical  expla- 
nations, when  she  sees  such  distractions  and  heart-burnings  are 
the  necessary  consequence?     Suppose  for  a  moment,  there  is  no 
substantial  difference  :  then   where  are  our  brethren,  who  have 
created  this  logomachy — this  war  of  words  !    (For  I  take  it,  that 
no  man  is  so  mad  and  bewildered  with  new  liglit,  as  to  deny  that 
the  innovations  are  from  that  side  of  the  house.)     Are  not  tliey 
who  deny  any  substantial  difference,  and   yet  persevere  in  ad- 
herence to  the  new  terms,  guilty  of  sin  in  violating  the  law  of 
love,  by  wounding  the  conscience  of  their  weaker  brethren?  Ilow 
can  they  persist  in  this  course    which  so  distracts  the  peace  of 
Zion  ?    If  they  honestly  think  it  is  a  mere  war  of  words,  let  our 
assailants — the  man  who  begun  this  war,  the  man  who  introduced 
the  new  and  objectionable  phraseology — let  them  take  it  away. 
They  can  do  it,  according  to  their  own  declarations,  without  any 
sacrifice  of  principle.     They  mean  the  same  thing  that  we  do. 
Then   let   them   speak  the  same  words.     If  siZ;/WeZ/t  means  the 
same  that  shibboleth  does,  why  will  our  brethren  rend  the  church 
by   pronouncing  the  aspirate  !     Is  the  hissing  sound  to  them  a 
matter  of  such  deep  importance,  that  it  must  be  uttered  even  at 
such   fearful,  expense  1  Ah,    Mr.    Moderator,  if  the   children   of 
Judah  speak  half  in  the  language  of  Ashdod,  it  is  because  they 
have  formed  nnholy  alliances  with  those  who  are  not  friendly  to 
the  peace  of  Jerusalem.     There  is  a  substantial  difference  in  the 
sentiment,  or  our  brethren  would  not  be  so  unreasonable  and  so 
uncharitable  as  to  turn   the  otherwise   peaceful  domain  of  our 
Zion  into  an  arena  of  perpetual  strife.    Oh,  no,  they  yee'  that  their 
innovations  are  worth  contending  for,  for  they  as  honest-hearted 
men,   would    not  contend  for  them,   at  such  fearful  cost.     Had 
not  brother  Barnes  been  allied  in  sentiment  with  the  New  Eng- 
land Ashdod,  he  would  not  speak  their  language.     Had  he  not 
found  out  their  riddle,  he  would  not  plough  with  their   heifer. 
Yes,  sir,  the  difference  is  substantial,  it  is  vital,  it  is  fundamental. 
Every  one  of  these  charges  has  been  proved  true.     The  principal 
ones,  Mr.  Barnes  expressly  admits  to  be  true.     He  does  teach, 
that  mankind  are  not  sinners  prior  to  voluntary  action — they  are 
indeed  so  placed  that  they  will  sin  so  soon  as  thoy  act  volunta- 
rily,— but  they  are  not  chargeable  with  sin  until  they  do  so  act — 
2.  That  Adam  was  ignorant  of  law  and  moral  relations.     3.  That 
men  do  not  lie,  6?/  nature,  under  an  insuperable  inability  to  do 
the  will  of  God,  but  only  they  are  unwilling,  and  they  can  turn 
as  soon  as  they  please.     4.  That  faith,  saving  fniih,  is  an  act  , 
of  the  mind  only,  and  not  a  holy  habit  or  abiding  principle  of 
action,  and  the  act  of  Abraham's  mind  itself,  not  the  Messiah's 
righteousness,  but  the  act  of  mind  was   reckoned  to  him   for 
righteousness.     5.   Having  represented  Adam   so  ignorant,  he 
denies,  of  course,  that  God   had  made   a  covenant  with   him. 
The  whole  doctrine  of  the  covenant  of  works  he  admits  that  he 
does  not  believe.     Adam  was  not  the  covenant  head  and  repre- 


141 

scnlative  of  his  people.  They  did  not  "sin  in  him  and  fall  with 
him."  No  other  relation  existed  hetween  him  and  them,  than 
between  a  drunkard  and  his  children.  Consequently,  6.  He 
denies  imputation  ;  the  transfer  of  legal  relations  cannot  take 
place  in  any  case,  but  by  the  voluntary  action  of  man.  Conse- 
quently, 7.  No  guilt  attaches;  there  is  no  liability  to  punish- 
ment on  account  of  Adam's  sin,  until  after  men  voluntarily 
transgress  ;  their  own  act  constitutes  the  only  legal  connexion 
with  Adam.  Th,en,  and  not  before,  they  are  guilty.  Conse- 
quently, as  the  Bible  runs  a  parallel  between  the  first  Adam 
and  the  second  Adam^  8.  Mr.  Barnes  denies  that  Jesus  suffered 
the  punishment  of  his  people's  sin.  He  admits  (so  do  Socinus 
and  Crellius,)  who  could  deny  it?  he  admits,  indeed,  that 
Christ  suffered;  that  he  died  for  men,  and  that  they  are  delivered 
by  his  satisfaction;  but  then  he  peremptorily  denies  that  his 
sflfferings  were  ^CTiflZ — he  did  not  endure  the  proper  penaZfy  of 
the  law — he  was  not  punished  for  our  sins.  Consequently,  de- 
nying the  representative  character  of  Adam  and  Christ,  9,  He 
must  deny,  and  he  does  deny,  the  imputation  of  Christ's  righte- 
ousness to  his  people,  just  as  he  denied  the  imputation  of 
Adam's  sin.  They  are  treated  as  if  righteous;  but  they  are  not 
so.  His  righteousness  is  not  theirs  in  law;  it  never  can  become 
so  ;  no  such  transfer  can  take  place.  And  tenth  znd  lastly,  he 
teaches  that  justification  is  simply  pardon — pardon  bought  in- 
deed ;  but  bought  without  paying  the  only  adequate  price,  viz. 
the  penalty  due  to  his  people's  sins,  and  so  not  bought  at  all. 
Such  is  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  these  Notes.  Now, 
Mr.  Moderator,  I  do  honestly,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  in 
love  to  brother  Barnes,  declare  my  belief,  that  this  leads  by  a 
straight  forward,  direct,  and  short  road  r6  downright,  desolating, 
damning  Socinianism.  If  this  system  is  true,  then  I'll  be  a 
Unitarian.  I'll  embrace  the  deistical  system  of  the  perfectabiliiy 
of  human  nature,  as  the  easiest  mode  of  escape  from  all  these 
perplexing  theological  controversies.  This  system  presents 
such  of  its  advocates  as  are  gracious  men,  to  my  mind  like  a 
boat  and  crew  suspended  by  a  cable,  a  mile  and  three-eighths  in 
length,  from  the  lower  extremity  of  Grand  Island.  There  they 
hang  on  the  bellying  surface  of  the  mighty  river,  just  over 
Niagara's  roaring  cataract  and  the  yawning  gulph  below — there 
they  hang  and  row  with  all  their  might  down  stream,  and  are 
only  prevented  from  the  fearful  ruin  by  the  strength  of  the  cable. 
This  cable,  Mr.  Moderator,  is  the  grace  of  God,  but  for  which 
this  mistaken  crew  would  speedily  make  the  fearful  plunge  into 
the  horrible  gulf  of  Socinianism.  Now  cut  this  cable,  and 
Where's  the  crew?  Put  into  this  boat  men  who  are  not  anchored 
to  the  throne  of  God  by  the  very  cords  of  truth  which  this  sys- 
tem denies,  and  ihe  moment  you  let  them  ^o,  where  are  they  ? 
Oh,  let  us  do  our  duty  in  endeavours  to  dissuade  our  brethren 
from  such  mad  experiments.  If  this  system  pervade  our  church, 
where  will  our  children  be  ?     True,  if  they  are  bound  by  tho 


142 

coVda  of  a  Saviour's  love,  they  will  be  saved  in  despite  of  their 
efforts  to  row  themselves  over  the  cataract;  But  then,  why 
teach  them  so  to  labour?  Will  such  a  system  of  error  be  a 
likely  means  of  fastening  them  with  such  cords  1  Hence  i  set 
out,  and  therefore  do  I  invoke  this  Assembly  to  interpose  th6 
salutary  discipline  of  God's  house,  for  the  arrest  of  this  system. 
Let  it  here  meet  such  a  sentence  as  will  deter  all  to  whom  your 
influence  extends  from  such  terrible  experiments.  I  repeat  it, 
I  have  no  unkind  feeling  to  gratify.  I  do  most  cordially  recipro- 
cate all  the  benevolent  expressions  brother  Barnes  has  uttered 
in  the  close  of  his  defence.  He  has  greatly  won  upon  the  best 
feelings  of  my  soul,  in  the  progress  of  this  trial.  And  the  mo- 
ment he  shall  cease  to  dig  under  the  foundations  of  our  Zion, 
and  labour  to  shake  the  pillars  that  support  the  lofty  dome, 
that  moment  my  arms  are  open  to  his  embrace,  and  my  hand 
and  heart  are  his,  in  any  warfare  he  may  plan  against  the  ene- 
mies of  her  King. 

Now  in  this  thing,  Mr.  Moderator,  my  hopes  are  realised. 
The  Son  of  God  has  thrown  a  solemnity  around  this  discussion 
of  no  ordinary  character.  He  has  therein  taught  us  that  when 
the  church,  in  her  legitimate  courts,  comes  up  to  the  line  of 
duty,  and  dares  to  discuss  and  decide  in  favour  of  the  truth,  she 
may  expect  the  God  of  truth  to  direct  her  councils.  In  the 
Presbytery  and  in  the  Synod,  (except  when  efforts  were  great 
and  violent,  and  persevering,  to  prevent  the  doctrinal  discussion) 
there  was  perfect  harmony  and  peace.  The  past  hisloty,  there- 
fore, of  this  case  calls  upon  you,  in  the  language  of  encourage- 
ment to  meet  fairly  and  decide  according  to  truth  on  the  faie  of 
this  system.     What  ma^  be  the 

n.  Results  is  the  next  general  classification  of  my  con- 
cluding remarks.  1.  Upon  the  original  parties  in  the  case.  And 
this  particular  1  mention  chiefly,  to  entreat  you  to  leave  it  out  of 
view  entirely  in  the  formation  of  your  opinions  on  the  merits  of 
questions  respectively.  What  is  the  present  prosecutor? — or 
what  is  the  present  appellant  1  Is  it  not  the  truth  of  God,  after 
which  you  are  to  seek,  and  in  favour  of  which,  you  are  to 
decide?  And  shall  fear,  favour,  or  affection,  for  either  party, 
have  any  thing  to  do  with  the  formation  of  your  judgment! 
*'  God  forbid  :  Yea,  let  God  be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar." 
*'  What  is  the  chaff  to  the  wheat,  saith  the  Lord  ?"  (2)  Upon 
yourselves.  This  too  I  mention  for  the  same  reason.  The 
members  of  this  house  have  no  right  to  ask  how  their  votes  may 
possibly  affect  their  individual  interests,  in  reference  to  charac- 
ter, to  worldly  business^  to  social  relations,  to  personal  friend- 
ships. Nothing  of  all  this,  I  am  persuaded  can  influence  an 
honest  Presbyterian  in  such  an  important  case:  only  so  far  as 
he  may  be  involved  in  the  general  interests  of  Zion  should  any 
man  allow  his  interests  to  influence  his  course  of  action  now. 
If  this  Assembly  decide  as  the  court  appealed  from  decided, 
they  know  what  they  have  to  expect ;  and  nothing  but  a  high 


143 

sense  of  duly  can  sustain  under  it.  (3)  To  the  chu>rch,  tba 
results  must  be  important:  and  no  man  can  foresee  them.  She 
is  only  in  a  small  degree  under  your  care.  Her  King  is  in 
the  midst  of  her,  and  she  is  safe.  Yet,  //  this  Assembly  shall 
DECIDE  nothing — absolutely  woM/;?^  .•  then  a  perpetuity  of  dis- 
traction and  controversy  must  follow — turmoil  and  strife;  and 
floods  of  error  will  succeed  to  floods  of  error  ;  discipline  is 
broken  down  and  rule  is  gone  :  the  world  will  sneer  at  our  want 
of  nerve,  and  all  sorts  and  descriptions  of  errorists  will  shout 
peans  of  victory.  For  you  will  observe,  that  indecision  is  victory 
to  them.  Error  is  arraigned  at  your  bar;  if  it  be  not  condemned^ 
it  will  of  right  claim  the  verdict,  and  the  whole  world  will 
grant  the  award.  But  if,  on  the  contrary,  this  Assembly  shall 
DEoipE  these  great  questions:  if  they  shall  sustain  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Synod  ;  then  the  distractions  and  controversies 
wijich  have  sprung  up  with  these  innovations  wmU  cease  in  a 
great  degree  ;  the  Spirit  of  God  having  thus  lifted  up  the  sttind- 
ard  of  your  constitution  against  them,  the  floods  of  error  will 
fall  back  broken,  though  foaming,  from  the  rock,  and  die  away 
in  the  murmurs  of  a  peaceful  sea:  discipline  will  be  restored, 
and  subscriptions  to  your  standards  will  not  be  accounted  an 
idle  form  :  the  world  will  stand  afar  off,  awe-siruck  at  the 
majesty  of  truth,  and  confess  that  God  is  in  Zion.  If  this 
Assembly  shall  not  decide,  if  some  middle  course  be  taken — some 
compromise — some  bartering  for  pride  and  consistency  of  charac- 
ter :  and  these  distractions  in  consequence,  continue,  then  it 
appears  plain  to  me,  that  many  of  the  best  sons  of  the  church, 
wearied  with  war,  will  go  off  in  detail,  and  find  in  other  denomi^ 
nations,  less  agreeable  to  their  judgment  in  general,  that  peace 
which  INDECISION  of  counsel  in  their  own,  refuses  to  give.  On 
the  contrary,  if  you  will  decide  in  favour  of  Truth,  and  your  own 
standards,  a  few  and  but  a  few  will  go  "  out  from  us,  because 
they  are  not  of  us."  Their  own  strong  predilections  for  another 
system  of  ecclesiastical  government,  and  another  system  of  doc- 
trine will  lead  them  to  a  more  upright  course  :  they  will  formally 
become,  what  in  reality  they  are:  and  we  shall  have  peace 
within  our  borders. 

From  this  would  result  union  in  counsel  and  energy  in  action. 
The  Presbyterian  church  would  then  arise  in  her  strength,  and 
*' come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  to  the  help  of  the  Lord 
against  the  mighty."  She  would  indeed  ♦'  look  forth  as  the 
morning;  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun,  and  terrible  as  an 
army  with  banners."  (4)  To  the  welfare  of  our  common  coun- 
try; to  the  cause  of  general  benevolence;  and  to  the  world's 
salvation,  the  results  must  be  most  felicitous.  The  God  of  pro- 
vidence and  grace  has  prepared  this  church  and  this  country  for 
some  great  and  glorious  ends  :  and  in  the  signs  of  the  limes,  we 
read  ilie  approach  of  great  eveats.  In  their  production  our 
church,  I  lionesUy  believe,  must  stand  proudly — no,  humbly 
pre-eminent.     She  has  powers  for  great  good,  and  she  is  pre- 


144 

Daring  for  it.  Let  me  entreat  you,  to  use  the  language  of  the 
Pittaburgh  Memorial — let  me  entreat  you  to  turn  your  eye 
upon  the  aspect  of  the  world.  Lo  !  what  an  inviting  field  for 
benevolent  enterprise.  And  is  there  a  body  of  believers  in  the 
whole  church  militant,  invested  M'ilh  so  many  of  the  qualifica- 
tions to  enter  it,  and  gather  the  rich  harvest  of  glory  to  our 
divine  Redeemer,  as  the  Presbyterian  church  1  The  posi- 
tion of  our  country  points  us  out — the  position  of  our  church 
points  us  out — the  position  of  the  world  points  us  out — the 
voice  of  unborn  and  unsanctified  millions  calls  us  to  the 
conflict.  The  Lord  of  Hosts  himself  has  gone  down  into 
the  plains  before  us,  and  chides  our  long  delay.  Now  we  ask, 
brethren,  what  causes  this  delay  ?  Why,  when  "the  armies  of 
the  living  God  begin  to  consolidate,"  and  himself  gives  the 
Wdlchward,  "  Truth  and  Victory'''' — oh,  why  this  delay  1  Ah  ! 
there  is  division  in  the  camp !  "There  be  some  that  trouble 
us."  //i/?oya//o/i  distracts  our  counsels,  alienates  our  affections, 
turns  the  sword  of  brother  in  upon  brother,  and  the  Master's 
work  remains  undone.  Do  you  ask,  "  how  shall  the  evil  be 
remedied?"  we  reply,  "Let  this  Assembly  come  up  to  the 
work  of  reform.  Let  them  establish  the  ancient  landmarks  of 
truth.  Let  ihem  unfurl  the  banner  of  the  constitution."  Yes, 
Mr.  Moderator,  let  your  standards  mark  the  centre  of  your 
camp — its  affections  and  it?  energies,  let  them  all  rally  round 
that  banner,  and  you  are  an  invincible  host.  What  a  legion  of 
trained  bands  you  could  soon  pour  forth  upon  the  territories  of 
<larkness  and  death,  if  it  were  not  for  your  internal  distractions? 
For  the  peace  of  our  Zion,  then,  and  the  world's  welfare,  I 
entreat  you  to  condemn  this  system  of  distracting  doctrines,  and 
thus  to  restore  peace  and  union  to  a  torn,  and  lacerated,  and 
bleeding  church.  Thus  shall  the  energies  expended  in  doruestic 
commotions,  be  directed  upon  the  foes  of  Zion,  and  the  increment 
of  our  power  be  inversely  as  the  diminution  of  our  numbers. 

in.  Solemn  indeed  are  the  responsibilities  that  now  rest  upon 
this  Assembly.  This  is  to  you  an  hour  of  no  ordinary  interest 
Never,  perhaps,  has  a  body  of  ministers  and  elders  met  on  thi. 
continent,  to  whose  acts  and  doings,  so  much  importance  has 
been  attached,  and  to  whom  so  large  a  number  of  the  friends 
and  the  enemies  of  truth  and  order,  are  looking  up  with  intense 
anxiety.  Never,  perhaps  has  so  much  ardent  supplication 
ascended  to  the  throne  of  divine  mercy  on  behalf  of  any  General 
Assembly.  Let  a  knowledge  of  this  fact  encourage  you  lo 
faithfulness  in  the  solemn  duties  of  your  station.  And  let  us 
alt  bear  in  mind  that  there  is  "  a  great  white  throne,"  b-efore 
which  we  must  each  one,  for  his  own  personal  and  official  con- 
duct, give  an  account  to  Hifn,  whose  eyes  are  as  a  flaming  fire, 
and  who  will  rectify  all  our  mistakes,  and  pronounce  a  judgment 
according  to  tiuth,  that  shall  stand  for  ever.  To  you,  is  now 
committed  the  final  issue  of  this  case  on  earth,  and  to  Him  in 
heaven. 

the:  end. 


APPENDIX. 


NEW-SCHOOLISM     IN    THE    SEVENTEENTH,     COMPARED    WITH    NEW- 
SCHOOLISM  IN  THE  NINETEENTH  CENTURY. 


The  followinsf  harmony  of  affiliated  errors,  is  drawn  up 
chiefly  from  Dr.  Thomas  IScott's  translation  of  the  official  history 
of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  held  in  1618 — 19  ;  in  which  the  Remon- 
strants or  followers  of  James  Arminius  were  condemned.  It  is 
here  appended,  in  the  hope  that  it  may  assist  in  convincing-  the 
reader,  that  there  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun — that  new  light 
is  old  darkness — and  that  war  and  error,  and  truth  and  peace,  are 
nearly  allied. 


I.  State  of  the  Belgic  churches, 
prior  to  the  introduction  of 
the  new  theology. 
"  In  the  Reformed  churches 
of  federated  Belgium,  how  great 
an  agreement  had,  in  the  pre- 
ceding age,  flourished,  on  all 
the  heads  of  orthodox  doctrine, 
among  the  pastors  and  doctors 
of  the  Belgic  churches;  and 
moreover,  how  great  order  and 
decorum  *  *  *  had  always  been 
preserved  in  the  government  of 
the  same,  is  too  well  known  to 
the  Christian  world,  for  it  to  be 
needful  to  set  it  forth  in  many 
words.  This  peace  and  har- 
mony of  the  Belgic  churches, 
lovely  (in  itself)  and  most  pleas- 
ing to  God  and  all  pious  men, 
certain  persons  had  attempted 
to  disturb,  with  unbridled  vio- 
lence, but  not  with  great  suc- 
cess ;  (persons)  who  having  de- 

13 


State  of  the  American  Presby- 
terian churches,  prior  to  the 
introduction  of  the  new  theo- 
logy. 

In  the  Presbyterian  churches 
in  this  Federated  Union,  there 
prevailed  a  goodly  measure  of 
harmony,  prior  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  improved  theology. 
For  a  time,  in  our  western  bor- 
ders indeed,  some  disturbances 
occurred  from  the  rash  and 
hasty  admission  of  men  into  her 
ministry,  during  that  first  scar- 
city of  ministeis.  Efforts  were 
made,  and  with  partial  success, 
to  thrust  in  illiterate  men,  and 
men  ill  grounded  in  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  Confession.  But 
these  were  suppressed  by  ihe 
timely  interposition  of  the  pro- 
per church  courts.  A  few  he- 
terodox men  were  cut  off",  and  a 
considerable  number  of  minis- 


146 


APPE>DIX- 


serted  popery,  but  being  not 
yet  fully  purified  from  its  lea- 
ven, had  passed  over  into  our 
churches,  and  had  been  admit- 
ted into  the  ministry  in  the 
same,  during-  that  first  scarcity 
of  ministers."  p.  8. 

These  disturbances  having 
been  suppressed,  ''  afterward 
James  Arminius,  pastor  of  the 
most  celebrated  church  at  Am- 
sterdam, attempted  the  same 
thing,  with  great  boldness  and 
enterprise."  p.  8... 


lers  who  had  been  thus  hastily 
admitted,  were  excluded,  and 
formed  a  new  body.  But  the 
general  condition  of  the  church 
was  that  of  peace  and  union  in 
the  truth.  Early  in  the  nine- 
teenth century,  matters  took  a 
turn  tending  towards  disorder; 
but  the  leaven  was  kept  under, 
and  outward  peace  and  good 
order  prevailed. 


11.  Disturbances — their  causes — novel  doctrines. 


"  James  Arminius,  a  man,  in- 
deed, of  a  more  vigorous  genius, 
(excitatioris)  but  whom  nothing 
pleased  except  that  which  com- 
mended itself  by  some  show  of 
novelty,  so  that  he  seemed  to 
disdain  those  things  received 
into  the  Reformed  churches, 
even  on  that  very  account,  that 
they  had  been  received.  *  *  * 
Afterwards  he  began  openly  to 
propose  and  disseminate  variojs 
heterodox  opinions  nearly  relat- 
ed to  the  errors  of  the  ancient  Pe- 
lagians, especially  in  an  expla- 
nation of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans: but  by  the  vigilance  of 
the  venerable  Presbytery  of 
that  church,  his  attempts  were 
speedily  opposed,  lest  he  should 
be  able  to  cause  those  disturb- 
ances in  the  church,  which  he 
seemed  to  project."  p.  9. 

"  Some  pastors  who  were  in- 
timately acquainted  with  him, 
gloried  that  they  possessed  an 
entirely  new  theolofjy.  His 
scholars,  having  returned  home 
from  the  university,  or  having 
been  removed  to  other  univer- 
sities, petulantly  (proterve)  in- 
sulted the  Reformed  churches, 


That  the  peace  of  the  Pres.- 
byterian  church  is  now  disturb- 
ed, will  not  be  disputed.  Our 
ecclesiastical  atmosphere  is 
greatly  agitated.  It  may  be  a 
profitable  question,  From  what 
causes  T  May  we  not  safely  in- 
fer the  cause  from  its  effects? 
If  a  controversy  now  exists,  and 
throws  the  whole  community 
into  commotion,  and,  upon  close 
examination,  we  find  the  s«6- 
ject  matter  of  the  controversy 
identical  with  principles  which 
are  known  to  have  produced, 
controversy  of  a  similar  charac- 
ter in  a  distant  age,  can  any 
reasonable  man  hesitate  to  be- 
lieve in  the  existence  of  the 
same  causes'!  Assuredly,  novel- 
ties in  doctrine  and  measures 
are  the  present  causes  of  pre- 
sent controversies.  "  Innova- 
tion distracts  our  councils."  If 
Mr.  Barnes  was  content  to  re- 
ceive the  doctrines  of  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith  in  their  plain, 
and  obvious,  and  commonly  un- 
derstood sense,  the  cause  of  con- 
troversy, 60  far  as  he  is  involved 
would  not  exist.  If  he  was 
content   to    labour  within  the 


APPENDIX. 


147 


by  disputing,  contradicting-  and 
reviling  their  doctrine."    p.  11. 

On  p.  20,  Dr.  Scott  lias  this 
note.  "  Nothing  can  be  more 
evident  than  this  fact,  that  the 
followers  of  Arminius  aimed  to 
subvert,  or  exceedingly  to  mo- 
dify, the  doctrine  of  the  autho- 
rised writings  of  the  Belgic 
churches;  and  that  the  others 
wanted  no  alteration  to  be  made 
in  that  doctrine." 

"Finally,  very  many  new 
things  in  the  government  of  the 
churches  occur  every  where  in 
this  fbrmular  (formula.^  So 
that  from  the  same,  it  might 
appear,  that  nothing  other  was 
proposed  by  those  men,  than 
that  they  might  make  p11  things 
new,  not  only  in  doctrine,  but  in 
the  external  government  of  the 
church  by  rites."    p.  50. 

*  *  *  They  presented  a  second 
remonstrance  to  the  Illustrious 
the  States,  in  which,  with  in- 
credible impudence,  they  endea- 
vour to  remove  from  themselves 
the  crime  of  innovation,  and  to 
fasten  the  same  on  those  pas- 
tors, who  most  constantly  re- 
mained in  the  received  doctrines 
of  the  churches."  p.  63. 

"  But  moreover,  because  some 
persons  having  gone  out  from 
among  us,  *  *  *  *  *  they  have 
grievously,  and  altogether  dan- 
gerously, disturbed  the  Belgic 
churches,  before  most  flourish- 
ing, and  most  united  in  faiih 
and  love,  and  in  these  heads  of 
doctrine,  have  recalled  ancient 
and  pernicious  errors,  and 
framed  new  ones:  and  publicly 
and  privately,  both  by  word  and 
by  writings,  have  scattered 
them  among  the  common  peo- 
ple, and  have  vehemently  con- 
tended for  them :    have   made 


"frame-work"  of  the  Constitu- 
tion he  would  find  a  harmoni- 
ous co-operation  of  all  true 
Presbyterians. 

The  reader  will  perceive  that 
novelty  and  haughty  resistance 
to  received  opinions,  by  the  in- 
troduction of  ancient  Pelagian- 
ism  led  to  distraction.  Nothing 
can  be  more  evident  than  this 
fact,  that  the  brethren  of  the 
new  school  do  aim  to  subvert, 
or  exceedingly  to  modify  the 
doctrine  of  the  authorised  writ- 
ings of  the  Presbyterian  church, 
and  that  the  others  want  no 
alteration  to  be  made  in  that 
doctrine. 

Another  point  of  resemblance 
is  violent  attempts  now  made 
to  misrepresent  the  orthodox 
views,  e.  g.  it  is  strenuously 
insisted  on,  that  we  teach  the 
absurd  doctrine  of  personal  iden- 
tity with  Adam.  This  absurd- 
ity has  been  fathered  on  Ed- 
wards, with  the  obvious  design, 
thereby  to  neutralize  his  influ- 
ence in  other  points.  The  same 
is  averred  in  reference  to  living 
orthodoxy.  We  all  deny  it; 
but  still  the  opposition  say,  we 
do  believe  it.  We  challenge 
the  proof,  and  there  is  none. 
Still  the  calumny  is  reiterated. 

The  reader  will  also  remark 
that,  as  the  Remonstrants  final- 
ly discovered,  that  the  orthodox 
were  the  innovators  :  so  now  it 
is  ascertained  that  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  is  semi-Pelagian, 
(see  Beecher's  trial.) 

Still  another  point.  The  new 
doctrines  find  their  way  to  light 
in  a  commentary  on  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  (See  Stu- 
art's Commentary  and  Barnes' 
Notes.) 

Let  us  now  attend  to  the  par- 


148 


APPENDIX. 


neither  measure  nor  end  of 
inveigliing  against  the  doc- 
trine hitherto  received  in  the 
churches,  by  enormous  calum- 
nies and  reproaches."   p.  127. 


ticulars  of  doctrinal  innovation. 
We  shall  not  find,  indeed,  a 
perfect  aofreement  in  the  detail ; 
but  it  will  appear  that  in  the 
main  points,  the  ancient  and  the 
modern  new  schools  are  identi- 
cal. 


Doctrines  of  the  Sijnod  of  Dort. 
Original  sin. 
"As  all  men  have  sinned  in 
Adam,  and  have  become  expos- 
ed to  the  curse  and  eternal 
.death,  God  would  have  done  no 
injustice  to  any  one,  if  he  had 
determined  to  leave  the  whole 
human  race  under  sin  and  the 
.curse,  and  to  condemn  them  on 
account  of  sin." — p.  87.  No 
Presbyterian  can  be  at  any  loss 
to  see  here  the  precise  doctrine 
of  his  own  church. 


Errorists  condemned  by  them. 
The  Synod  condemned  all 
who  teach  that  '  All  men  are 
taken  into  a  state  of  reconcilia- 
tion and  the  grace  of  the  cove- 
nant ;  so  that  no  one,  on  account 
of  original  sin,  is  liable  to  dam- 
nation or  to  be  damned ;  but 
that  all  are  exempt  from  the 
condemnation  of  sin.' — p.  10-1 

Who  teach  that  '  It  cannot 
properly  be  said,  that  original 
sin  suffices  of  itself  for  the  con- 
demnation of  the  whole  human 
race,  or  the  desert  of  temporal 
and  eternal  punishments.' — p. 
111.  To  see  how  much  like 
this  is  the  modern  doctrine,  see 
p.  104,  of  the  argument. 


The  will. —  The  ability  doctrine. 


"  Therefore,  all  men  are  con- 
ceived in  sin,  and  born  children 
of  wrath,  indisposed  (inepti,)  to 
all  saving  good,  propense  to 
.evil,  dead  in  sin,  and  the  slaves 
of  sin  ;  and  without  the  grace  of 
the  regenerating  Holy  Spirit, 
they  neither  are  willing  nor 
able  to  turn  to  God,  to  correct 
their  depraved  nature,  or  to 
dispose  themselves  to  the  cor- 
rection of  it." — p.  105. 

"  In  which  manner,  (or  for 
which  reason,)  unless  the  admi- 
rable Author  of  all  good  should 
work  in  us,  there  could  be  no 
hope  to  man  of  rising  from  the 
all,  by  that  free  will,  by  which, 


Condemned  are  they  "  who 
usurp  the  distinctions  of  im- 
petration  and  application,  that 
they  may  instil  this  opinion  into 
the  unwary  and  inexperienced; 
that  God,  as  far  as  pertained  to 
him,  had  willed  to  confer  equally 
upon  all  men,  the  benefits  which 
are  acquired  by  the  death  of 
Christ:  and  that  some  rather 
than  others  (pra?  aliis,)  should 
be  partakers  of  the  remission  of 
sins  and  eternal  life,  this  discri- 
mination depended  on  their  free 
will,  applying  to  themselves  the 
grace  indifferently  ofiered." — p. 
103. 

'*  Who  teach  that '  Man  unre- 


APPENDIX. 


149 


when  standing',  he  fell  to  ruin." 
p.  110. 

"And  that  others,  who  are 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the 
gospel,  do  come  and  are  con- 
verted, this  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  man,  as  if  distinguishing-  him- 
self by  free  will  (libero  arbitrio) 
ft-om  others,  furnished  with 
equal  or  sufficient  grace,  (which 
the  proud  heresy  of  Pelagius 
states,)  but  to  God,  who,  as  he 
chose  his  own  people  in  Christ 
from  eternity,  so  he  also  effec- 
tually calls  them  in  time ;  gives 
them  repentance  and  faith." — p. 
107. 

The  reader  will  here  perceive 
the  doctrine  of  our  church  as  it 
has  been  held  from  the  first,  and 
is  taught  in  our  Confession. 
Man  has  neither  the  ability  nor 
the  will  to  convert  himself. 


generate  is  neither  properly  nor 
totally  dead  in  sins,  or  destitute 
of  all  power  for  what  is  spiri- 
tually good;  but  that  he  can 
hunger  and  thirst  after  righte- 
ousness of  life,  and  offer  the  sa- 
crifice of  a  broken  and  contrite 
spirit,  which  is  accepted  by 
God.'  "—p.  112. 

"  Who  teach  that  'Grace  and 
free  will  are  partial  causes  con- 
curring at  the  same  time  to  the 
beginning  of  conversion ;  nor 
doth  grace,  in  the  order  of  cau- 
sally, precede  the  efficacy  of  the 
will ;  that  is,  God  doth  not  effec- 
tually help  the  will  of  man  to 
conversion,  before  the  will  of 
man  moves  and  determines  it- 
self.' "—p.  115. 

The  reader  must  see  here  the 
old  doctrines  of  Pelagius,  re- 
vived by  the  Arminians,  and 
now  strenuously  thrust  upon  us 
as  new  theology.  iVlan  has  the 
ability;  the  will  only  is  wanting. 


3.  Faith  a  grace. 

"  That  some,  in  time,  have 
faith  given  to  them  by  God,  and 
others  have  it  not  given,  pro- 
ceeds from  his  eternal  decree. 
For,  '  known  unto  God  are  all 
his  works,  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world.'  Acts  xv.  18.  Eph. 
i.  11.  According  to  which  de- 
cree, he  graciously  softens  the 
hearts  of  the  elect,  however 
hard,  and  he  bends  them  to  be- 
lieve; but  the  non-elect  he 
bends,  in  just  judgment,  to  their 
own  perversity  and  hardness.'  " 
p.  88. 

"Thus,  therefore,  faith  is  the 
gift  of  God  ;  not  in  that  it  is 
offered  to  the  will  of  man  by 


Faith  an  act  of  the  mind. 

"  For  the  proof  of  this  thing, 
he  [Gomarus,]  produced  his  own 
very  Vv'ords,  written  out  from 
the  hand  writing  of  the  same 
Arminius,  in  which  he  asserts 
that  in  the  justification  of  man 
before  God,  the  righteousness  of 
Christ  is  not  imputed  for  righte- 
ousness ;  but  that  faith  itself,  or 
the  act  of  believing  (t3,  credere,) 
by  the  gracious  acceptation, 
(acceptationem,  acquittal,)  was 
that  our  righteousness,  by  which 
we  are  justified  before  God." 
p.  23. 

In  view  of  this  doctrine  the 
Synod  condemn  those  "  Who 
teach  that,  '  in  the  true  conver- 


God,  but  that  the  thing  itself    sion  of  man,  there  cannot  be 
is  conferred  on  him,  inspired,     new  qualities,  habits,  or  gifts, 

13* 


150 


APPENDIX. 


infused  into  liim.  Not  even  that 
God  only  confers  the  power  of 
believinn^,  but  from  tlicnce  ex- 
pects the  consent,  or  the  act  of 
believing-;  bat  that  he  who 
worketh  both  to  will  and  to  do, 
vvorketh  in  man  both  to  will  to 
believe,  and  to  believe  itself, 
(et  velle  credere  et  ipsum  cre- 
dere,) and  thus  he  worketh  all 
things  in  all."— p.  109. 

"  In  order  to  give  them  alone 
justifying  faith,  and  thereby  to 
lead  them  to  eternal  life — that 
he  should  confer  on  them  the 
giftoffaith."— p.  100. 


infused  by  God  into  his  will ; 
and  so  faith,  by  which  we  are 
first  converted,  and  from  which 
we  are  called  the  faithful,  is  not 
a  quality  or  gift  infused  by  God  ; 
but  only  an  act  of  man.'  " — p. 
113. 

For  proof  that  this  error  is 
part  of  our  new  theology,  the 
reader  may  consult  the  preced- 
ing Argument,  p.  54,  die.  where 
he  will  see  evidence  of  remark- 
able coincidence.  Mr.  Barnes 
does  indeed  deny  that  faith  is  a 
work,  whilst  he  affirms  it  to  be 
"  his  own  act.'  Dr.  Wilson, 
however,  proves  it  upon  him  be- 
yond cavil.     See  p.  59. 


4.  Faith  not  a  condition  of 
election. 

"  This  same  election  is  not 
made  from  any  foreseen  faith, 
obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or 
any  other  good  quality  and  dis- 
position, as  a  prerequisite  cause, 
or  condition  in  the  man  who 
should  be  elected ;  but  unto 
fiith  and  iinto  the  obedience  of 
faith,  holiness,"  &c. — p.  89. 

The  doctrine  condemned  in 
the  opposite  column  is  some- 
times avowed  publicly  in  this 
nineteenth  century. 


Faith  a  condition  oj"  election. 

The  Synod  condemn  those 
"  Who  teach  that  *  election  of 
individuals  to  salvation,  incom- 
plete and  not  peremptory,  is 
made  from  foreseen  faith,  re- 
pentance, and  sanctity  and  piety 
begun;  and, therefore,  faith, the 
obedience  of  holiness,  piety,  and 
perseverance,  are  not  the  fruits 
and  effects  of  immutable  elec- 
tion to  glory,  but  the  conditions 
and  causes  required  before- 
hand.' "—pp.  95,  96. 


Doctrine  of  perfect  satisfaction 
maintained. 

Which  punishment  we 


cannot  escape,  unless  the  justice 
of  God  be  satisfied." 

"2.  But  as  we  cannot  satisfy  it, 
and  deliver  ourselves  from  the 
wrath  of  God,  God  of  infinite 
mercy  gave  to  us  his  only  be- 
jrotten  Son  as  a  Surety,  who, 
lh.it  he  might  make  satisfaction 
for  us,  was  made  sin  and  a  curse 


Doctrine  of  perfect  satisfaction 
denied. 

The  Synod  condemn  those 
"  who  teach"  that  God  the  Fa- 
ther destined  his  own  Son  unto 
the  death  of  the  cross,  without  a 
certain  and  a  definite  counsel  of 
saving  any  one  by  name  (nomi- 
jiatione,)  so  that  its  own  neces- 
sity, utility, and  merit oriousness, 
(dignitas)  might  be  established 
unimpaired  (sarta  tecta)  to  the 


APPENDIX. 


151 


on  the  cross  for  us,  or  in  our 
stead." 

"  3.  This  death  of  the  Son  of 
God  is  a  single  and  most  perfect 
sacrifice  for  sins ;  of  infinite  va- 
lue and  price,  abundantly  suffi- 
cient to  expiate  the  sins  of  the 
whole  world." 

"  4. Finally,  because  his 

death  was  conjoined  with  the 
feeling  of  the  wrath  and  curse 
of  God,  which  we  by  our  sins 
liad  deserved."     P.  99. 

Reader,  are  not  the  above  the 
very  doctrines  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Confession  on  the  points 
handled]     Here  mark, 

1.  We  deserved  punishment. 

2.  Christ  suffered  punishment. 

3.  Justice  required  ^er/ecfsa- 
tisf action. 

4.  Christ,  by  sufifering,  per- 
fectly satisfied  justice. 

Punishment,  therefore,  to  the 
tvhole  extent  of  the  law's  de- 
mand against  his  people,  Christ 
did  endure.  The  doctrine  of 
full  satisfaction  is  here  clearly 
taught.  That  this  is  explicitly 
denied  by  Mr.  Barnes,  (and 
others,)  see  "Argument,"  p.ll2. 

In  the  opposite  column,  have 
you  not  the  present  new  doctrine 
of  an  indefinite  atonement — an 
atonement  that  secures  the  sal- 
vation of  no  one  1  An  atonement 
that  "  atones  God!" 

Will  the  reader  also  give  at- 
tention due  to  Dr.  Scott's  note? 
How  admirably  it  suits  "  our  age 
and  land !" 

How  great  the  astonishment 
and  strong  the  disgust  of  some  at 
these  statements,  the  public 
press  and  the  ecclesiastical  as- 
semblies of  our  church  may  tes- 
tify. 


benefit  obtained  (impetrationi) 
by  the  death  of  Christ,  and  be 
perfect  in  its  measures,  (nume- 
ris)  and  complete  and  entire, 
even  if  the  obtained  redemption 
had  not,  in  fact,  been  applied  to 
any  individual."     P.  101. 

"3.  Who  teach  that '  Christ,  by 
his  satisfaction  did  not  with  cer- 
tainty (certo)  merit  that  very 
salvation  and  faith,  by  which 
this  satisfaction  of  Christ  may  be 
effectually  applied  unto  salva- 
tion ;  but  only  that  he  acquired 
of  the  Father,  pov.er,  and  a 
plenary  will,  of  acting  anew 
with  men,  and  of  [prescribing 
whatever  new  conciitions  he 
willed,  the  performance  of  which 
might  depend  on  the  free  will  of 
man ;  and  therefore  it  might  so 
happen  either  that  none  or  that 
all  might  fulfil  them."  Now 
these  think  far  too  meanly  of  the 
death  of  Christ;  they  in  no  wise 
acknowledge  the  principal  fruit 
or  benefit,  obtained  by  it,  and 
recall  from. hell  the  Pelagian 
heresy."     P.  102. 

On  this  Dr.  Scott  has  the  fol- 
lowing note,  viz. 

"  That  so  large  a  body  of  learn- 
ed theologians,  collected  from 
various  churches,  should  unani- 
mously, and  without  hesitation, 
and  in  so  strong  language,  de- 
clare the  error  here  rejected  to 
be  the  revival  of  the  Pelagian 
heresy,  may  indeed  astonish  and 
disgust  numbers  in  our  age  and 
land,  who  oppose  something,  at 
least,  exceedingly  like  this, 
against  the  doctrines  called 
evangelical ;  but  it  should  lead 
them  to  reflect  on  the  subject, 
and  to  pray  over  it.  Are  they 
not,  in  opposing  Calvinism,  re- 
viving and  propagating  the  he- 
resy of  Pelagius  1" 


152 


APPENDIX. 


IV.  The  Policy,  including  in  some  measure  the  Morality  of  the 

New  Theology. 


In  the  Seventeenth  Century. 
1.  Concealment  of  views  and 
glosses  upon  them. 

Arminius  was  educated  at 
Geneva ;  but,  renouncing'  the 
doctrines  of  the  school  in  which 
he  had  been  educated,  he  at  first 
"  paved  the  way  for  himself  to 
this  thing  [his  novelties]  by  pub- 
licly and  privately  extenuating 
and  vehemently  attacking,  the 
reputa lion  and  authority  of  the 
most  illustrious  doctors  of  the 
reformation,  Calvin,  Zanchius, 
Beza" — p.  9.  And  Mosheira 
says,  "  Arminius  taught  his  sen- 
timents publicly."  But  after- 
wards when  about  to  be  intro- 
duced into  the  professorship  of 
Theology  at  Leyden,  and  "  the 
Presbytery  of  Amsterdam  re- 
fused to  consent  to  his  dismis- 
sion," he  endeavoured  to  cloak 
and  cover  over  his-  real  senti- 
ments. His  dismission  was  final- 
ly obtained,  "yet  upon  this  con- 
dition, that  a  conference  being 
first  held  with  Dr.  Francis  Go- 
marus,  concerning  the  principal 
heads  of  doctrine,  he  should  re- 
move from  himself  all  suspicion 
of  heterodoxy  by  an  explicit  de- 
claration of  his  opinion." 

In  this  conference  "  he  unre- 
servedly condemned  the  princi- 
pal dogmas  of  the  Pelagians 
concerning  natural  grace;  the 
powers  of  free-will,  original  sin, 
the  perfection  of  man  in  this 
life,  predestination,  and  the 
others" — "at  the  same  time  he 
promised,  that  he  would  teach 
nothing  which  differed  from  the 
received  doctrines  of  the  church- 
es." 10. 


In  the  Nineteenth  Century. 

1.  Concealment  oj"  views,  and 
glosses  upon  them. 

Mr.  Birnes  was  educated  at 
our  Geneva.  How  far  he  has 
adhered  to  the  doctrines  of 
Princeton  the  reader  must  judge 
for  himself.  It  is  remarkable 
also  that  his  opmions,  most  at 
variance  with  the  standards  and 
the  seminary,  appeared  in  their 
most  obnoxious  form  "in  an  ex- 
planation of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans."  Some  others  have, 
in  like  manner,  turned  their 
backs  upon  their  teachers,  and 
refused  their  instructions. 

In  the  last  General  Assembly 
it  was  incidentally  remarked  by 
the  present  prosecutor,  that 
young  men  sometimes  had  gone 
to  Princeton  after  studying  else- 
where, with  the  precise  design 
to  inoculate  with  new  divinity. 
This  produced  some  excitement, 
was  denied,  and  proof  demand- 
ed. The  proof  was  promptly 
given  on  the  floor,  and  the  evil 
probably  does  not  now  exist. 
Such  conduct  needs  only  to  be 
held  up  to  public  view,  to  secure 
a  just  sentence  upon  it. 

In  the  conferences  held  with 
Mr.  Barnes,  about  the  time  he 
was  received  into  the  Presbyte- 
ry of  Philadelphia,  by  members 
and  by  a  committee  of  Presby- 
tery (though  he  refused  to  hear 
them  as  a  committee,)  he  de- 
clared, and  still  declares,  that 
he  holds  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
church,  and  is  not  conscious  of 
teaching  any  thing  materially 
at    variance    with    them:    the 


APPENDIX. 


153 


"  May  6,  7, 1602.  In  the  be- 
ginn'mg  of  this  [his  professor- 
ship] he  endeavoured  by  every 
means  to  avert  from  himself 
any  suspicion  of  heterodoxy ; 
so  that  he  defended  by  his  sup- 
port and  patronage  in  public  dis- 
putations [October  28,]  the  doc- 
trine of  the  reformed  churches, 
concerning'  the  satisfaction  of 
Christ,  justifying  faith,  justifica- 
tion by  faith,  the  perseverance 
of  those  who  truly  believe,  the 
certitude  of  salvation,  the  im- 
perfection of  man  in  this  life, 
and  the  other  heads  of  doctrine, 
which  he  afterwards  contradict- 
ed, and  which  at  this  day  are 
opposed  by  his  disciples.  (This 
he  did)  contrary  to  his  own 
opinion,  as  John  Arnoldi  Corvi- 
nus  [one  of  his  followers]  in  a 
certain  Dutch  writing  ingenu- 
ously confesses."  p.  10,  11. 

"  But  when  he  had  been  now 
engaged  in  this  employment  as 
professor,  a  year  or  two,  it  was 
detected,  that  he  publicly  and 
privately  attacked  most  of  the 
dogmas  received  in  the  reformed 
churches,  called  them  into  doubt 
and  rendered  them  suspected  to 
his  scholars."  11.  "  Most  of  the 
young  men  coming  from  the 
University  of  Leyden,  and  the 
instruction  of  Arminius,  being 
called  to  the  ministry  of  the 
churches,  in  the  examination 
indeed  concealed  their  opinion 
by  ambiguous  methods  of  speak- 
ing." p.^  21.  "  They  added  that 
declaration  of  their  own  opinion 
concerning  the  same  articles, 
which  they  under  the  ambiguous 
covering  of  words  concealed, 
that  $30  it  might  appear  to  the 
more  unskilful  not  much  distant 
from  the  truth."  p.  36. 


reader  of  his  Notes  and  of  the 
preceding  argument  must  judge 
in  this  case.  He  will  also  ob- 
serve that  for  some  years  after 
the  first  difficulty,  nothing  ap- 
peared to  excite  alarm  and  call 
forth  contentions  in  the  churches. 
Comparatively  there  was  a  sup- 
pression of  the  obnoxious  senti- 
ments.— It  now  appears,  it  was 
a  fire  only  kept  under,  not  ex- 
tinguished. We  are  now  told 
the  sentiments  have  never  been 
changed.  They  are  held  now 
by  him  as  they  always  were. 

Now  the  point  here,  to  which 
the  reader's  mind  is  directed  is 
simply  this,  and  the  comparison 
is  not  meant  for  Mr.  Barnes  only 
but  for  those  in  general  who 
hold  with  him,  the  inconsistency 
of  these  views,  and  their  main- 
tenance with  a  profession  of  ad- 
herence to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  Catechisms  of  our 
Church. 

If  there  was  no  concealment 
now  under  ambiguous  terms, 
would  the  Church  be  then  dis- 
tracted 1  Is  not  the  fact  of  re- 
sistance to  the  right  of  examina- 
tion proof  undeniable,  that  men 
are  afraid  to  be  examined  ?  Do 
the  orthodox  shrink  from  a  full 
and  unreserved  exposure  of  their 
views? 


154 


APPENDIX. 


2.  No  difference   in  fundamentals — public  peace    and  private 

war — delay. 


At  the  annual  meetings  of 
the  Synods,  reports  were  usu- 
ally presented,  in  which  griev- 
ances, if  any  existed,  were  ar- 
raigned by  the  Presbyteries.  In 
16U5,the  new  theolog-y  was  pre- 
sented. •'  Arminius  bore  this 
very  grievously,  ((cgerrime) 
and  strove  with  all  his  power 
that  this  grievance  should  be 
recalled;  which,  when  he  could 
not  obtain,  by  the  assistance  of 
the  Curators  [Trustees]  of  the 
University,  he  procured  a  testi- 
monial from  his  colleagues,  in 
which  it  is  declared,  "  That  in- 
deed more  things  were  disputed 
among  the  students,  than  it  was 
agreeable  to  them ;  but  that 
among  the  professors  of  sacred 
theology  themselves,  as  far  as 
it  appeared  to  them,  there  was 
no  dissention  in  fundamentals." 

When  a  committee  of  the 
Presbytery  waited  on  Arminius, 
"  in  order  either  that  satisfac- 
tion might  be  given  by  him  in 
a  friendly  conference,  or  the 
whole  affair  might  be  carried 
before  a  lawful  Synod.  To 
these  (persons)  he  answered, 
*'  That  he  himself  had  never 
given  just  cause  for  these  ru- 
mours; neither  did  it  appear 
prudent  in  him  to  institute  any 
conference  with  the  same  per- 
sons, as  deputies,  who  should 
make  the  report  concerning  the 
matter,  unto  the  Synod ;  but  if 
they  would  lay  aside  this  cha- 
racter, (personam,)  he  would 
not  decline  to  confer  with  them, 
as  private  pastors,  concerning 
ths  doctrine ;  on  this  condition, 
tht  if,  perhaps,  they  should  too 


Here  you  see  three  points  of 
resemblance  between  the  an- 
cient and  modern  policy  con- 
nected with  the  same  doctrines. 

1.  Every  method  is  practised 
to  prevent  a  doctrinal  discussion 
and  decision  in  the  proper  eccle- 
siastical bodies.  Any  kind  of 
discussion  was  tolerable,  but 
that  which  might  lead  to  an  ec- 
clesiastical decision  on  the  doc- 
trinal points.  Nor  can  the 
reader  of  the  history  be  at  any 
loss  for  the  reason  of  this  course. 
They  were  the  groiving-  party, 
and  delay  was  an  increase  of 
their  strength.  Hence,  though 
the  fire  of  new-light  broke  out 
in  1602,  all  the  efforts  of  the 
orthodox  failed  of  bringing  out 
an  ecclesiastical  decision  until 
1619.  Thus  for  nearly  seven- 
teen 5'^ears  did  they  baffle  and 
procure  delay. 

2.  The  reader  Vvill  see  an- 
other point  of  policy;  viz.  they 
regretted  the  prevalent  disputa- 
tion: it  "was  not  agreeable  to 
them."  So  now.  The  very 
men  who  have  revived  these 
errors,  cry  out  for  peace — "  let 
us  alone — what  have  we  to  do 
with  thee."  The  art  of  cre- 
ating mischief,  and  imputing  it 
to  others,  seems  inseparable 
from  those  errors.  A  notable 
instance  I  here  record,  as  I  have 
not  seen  it  elsewhere  recorded. 
For  some  ten  years,  the  bre- 
thren of  the  Philadelphia  Pres- 
bytery, had  met  for  prayer  in 
Dr.  Greert's  study,  on  Monday 
morning.  After  the  new  theo- 
logy became  rife,  its  advocates 
drew  off,  and  formed  an  opposi- 


APPENDIX. 


155 


little  agree  among  themselves, 
they  would  report  nothing  of 
this  to  the  Synod.  As  the  de- 
puties judged  this  to  be  unjust, 
and  as  the  solicitude  could 
not  be  taken  away  from  the 
churches  by  a  conference  of 
this  kind,  they  departed  from 
him  without  accomplishing  their 
purpose,"  p.  12. 

"  VVlien  they  had  met  to- 
gether, the  Remonstrants  re- 
fused to  institute  the  conference 
with  the  other  six  pastors, 
as  with  the  deputies  of  the 
churches  of  Holland  and  West 
Friezland,  such  as  they  showed 
themselves  to  be  by  letters  of 
commission,  (Jidei,)  but  they 
should  seem  to  be  adversaries 
of  the  churches  ; — unless  these 
would  lay  aside  that  character." 
p.  39. 


3.  Braving  a  trial,  and 

"  He,  (Arminius)  neverthe- 
less persisted  in  his  purpose ; 
so  that  he  at  length  exclaim- 
ed, that  he  wondered,  seeing 
various  rumours  of  liis  errors 
had  gone  about  through  the 
churches  ;  and  the  conflagration 
excited  by  him,  was  said  to 
-ise  above  the  very  roofs  of  the 
churches;  that  he  yet  fou.i:!  no 


tion  prayer-meeting ;  they  broke 
this  form  of  brotherly  commu- 
nion, and  yet,  the  matter  was  so 
managed,  by  some  body  or  no 
body,  that  the  imj)ression  pre- 
vailed generally,  that  the  old 
school  brethren  had  refused  to 
pray  with  the  new.  So  com- 
pletely did  this  device  succeed, 
that  my  brother-in-law.  Dr. 
Dickey,  who  laboured  much  to 
heal  the  breach,  came  to  me 
with  the  deep  impression  upon 
his  mind  that  the  old  school 
brethren  had  drawn  off  and  re- 
fused to  pray  with  the  others, 
and  he  was  exceedingly  hurt  by 
it,  and  upon  being  correctly  in- 
formed, was  exceedingly  sur- 
prised. 

3.  One  other  point.  The 
matters  in  controversy  are  non- 
essentials— "  there  was  no  dis- 
sention  in  fundamentals."  This 
is  now  the  cry — it  is  only  a 
dispute  about  terms — or  philo- 
sophical distinctions — not  wor- 
thy of  serious  notice. 

Well,  if  our  brethren  really 
believe  so,  they  can  easily  prove 
the  sincerity  of  their  belief,  by 
abstaining  from  the  use  of  their 
terms  and  distinctions.  Does 
not  the  perpetuity  of  their  con- 
tending, prove  that  they  at  least 
think  the  matters  worth  con- 
tending for  1 

then  shrinking  from  it. 

Mr.  Barnes  in  the  Presbytery 
of  Philadelphia,  invited,  time 
after  time,  a  regular  trial.  The 
same  has  been  clamorously 
called  for  by  others  on  the  same 
side :  a  notable  case  of  which 
bravo  occurred  in  the  General 
Assembly  of  1834.  But  now, 
vdien  their  own  request  is 
granted — when  charges  are  pre- 


156 


APPENDIX. 


one,  who  dared  to  lodge  an  ac- 
cusation against  liim.  Goma- 
rns,  in  order  to  meet  this  boast- 
ing, undertook  to  prove  that  he 
had  taught  such  an  opinion  con- 
cerning the  first  article  of  our 
faith,  namely,  concerning  the 
justification  of  man  before  God, 
as  was  opposed  to  the  word  of 
God,  and  to  the  Confession  of 
the  Belgic  churches."   p.  23. 

Yet  he  was  unwilling  to  meet 
it,  for  "  When  Arminius  under- 
stood this,  [that  a  Synod  was 
about  to  be  called]  he  procured, 
through  Utenbogardiis, — that 
the  annual  Synods  themselves — 
should  be  deferred."  p.  24. 

The  orthodox  petitioned  again 
for  the  calling  of  a  Synod  [the 
civil  government  then  held  the 
power  to  call]  (June  23,  1608.) 
To  this  petition,  tlie  Illustrious 
States  declared,  that  they  had 
determined,  in  the  next  Octo- 
ber, to  call  together  a  provincial 
Synod  for  this  purpose,  [viz.  to 
decide  these  doctrinal  disputes.] 
When  this  had  been  made 
known  to  the  churches,  all  the 
pastors  attached  to  Arminius 
were  again  admonished,  that 
each  of  them  would  lay  open  to 
his  classis,  [Presbytery,]  his 
considerations,  that  the  same 
might  be  lawfully  carried  to  the 
approaching  Synod.  But  they, 
as  before,  so  now  also  each  of 
them,  dechned  this  with  •  one 
consent,  with  their  accustomed 
evasions."  p.  24,  25. 


sented,  behold  what  patience- 
exhausting  efforts  have  been 
made  to  evade  a  trial.  For  the 
evdence  of  such  efforts  you  are 
referred  to  the  Introduction,  pp. 
vi — ix.  of  this  little  volume:  and 
also  to  tiie  history  of  the  case» 
under  appeal,  before  the  Synod 
of  Philadelphia — see  Minutes, 
p.  10-19.  You  are  also  referred 
to  the  Barnes  case,  as  it  pre- 
sented itself  before  the  General 
Assembly  of  1831.  What  ex- 
traordinary efforts  were  then 
made  to  evade  a  decision  1 
True,  some  of  the  orthodox 
joined  in  the  compromise,  which 
every  man  now  sees  was  a  com- 
promise, by  the  temporary  sa- 
crifice of  truth  ;  but  then,  it 
was  because  they  could  not  pro- 
cure a  fair  and  full  decision  on 
the  doctrinal  points.  The  men 
who  chiefly  ruled  in  that  As- 
sembly were  on  the  other  side, 
and  their  weight  led  to  that  dis- 
astrous compromise.  Let  any 
candid  man  ask  himself,  where- 
fore this  shrinking  fromadoctri- 
nal  decision?  Can  ingenuity, 
consistently  with  truth,  return 
any  other  answer  than  this .' 
viz.  The  new  side  feel  con- 
scious of  departure  from  the 
standards  of  the  Presbyterian 
church,  and  cannot  abide  a  com- 
promise, that  may  result  in  a 
legal  decision  1 


4.  Refusing  subscription  to  the  Confession. 


•'  The  Synod  also  commanded 
all  the  pastors,  for  the  sake  of 
testifying  their  consent  in  doc- 
trine, that  they  should  subscribe 
the  Confession  and  Catechism 


Parallel  to  this  is  the  case  of 
the  non-subscribing  Presbyte- 
rians in  the  Synod  of  the  West- 
ern Reserve,  and  elsewhere. 
The     General     Assembly    has 


APPENDIX. 


157 


of  those  churches,  which,  in 
many  classes  [presbyteries]  had 
been  neglected,  and  by  others 
refused." 

"  The  pastors  also  who  had 
embraced  the  opinion  of  Armi- 
nius,  every  where  in  the  classes 
refused  to  obey  the  mandate  of 
the  Synod,  concerning  the  sub- 
scription of  the  Confession  and 
Catechism."— p.  14. 


taken  order,  and  required  all 
her  ministers  to  express  their 
reception  of  the  Confession  and 
Catechisms,  by  answering  the 
questions  prescribed.  With  this 
rule  and  order  they  have  never 
been  able  to  secure  compliance. 
It  is  believed  that  ministers  have 
sat  in  the  Assembly  itself  who 
had  not  adopted  the  Confession. 


5.  Claim  for  toleration. 


"  The  remonstrants  judged, 
that  no  more  certain  method  of 
concord  could  be  entered  on, 
than  a  mutual  toleration,  by 
which  each  party  might  be  per- 
mitted freely  to  teach  and  con- 
tend for  his  own  opinion  con- 
cerning these  articles." — p.  46. 
"  Such  a  toleration,"  adds  Dr. 
Scott,  in  a  note,  "  amounted  to 
an  entire  abolition  of  the  Belgic 
Confession  and  Catechism, 
without  any  previous  interfe- 
rence of  those  Synods,  classes, 
and  Presbyteries,  which  were 
essential  to  their  form  of  church 
government." 


No  man  conversant  with 
church  affairs,  can  be  at  any  loss 
to  tra,ce  the  resemblance  here. 
In  this  land  is  a  Constitution 
forming  a  visible  bond  of  union 
— its  principles  are  republican 
— but  many  citizens  desire  other 
principles,  and  proceed  to  create 
a  civil  government  on  monar- 
chical or  aristocratical  princi- 
ples. They  appoint  their  offi- 
cers, they  disseminate  their  doc- 
trines, &c.  Our  government 
interferes,  and  they  claim  free 
toleration — is  it  not  a  free  coun- 
try! "  Such  a  toleration  amounts 
to  an  entire  abolition."  Is  not 
this  what  some  desire  1 


6.  Misrepresentations  of  the  Orthodox  views. 


"In  this  [their  Remonstrance] 
they  placed  before  them  [the 
civil  rulers,]  the  doctrine  of  the 
Reformed  churches,  concerning 
the  divine  predestination,  and 
the  perseverence  of  the  saints, 
unfaithfully  (mala  fide,)  and  not 
without  open  and  atrocious  slan- 
ders, that  by  this  means  they 
might  render  it  odious  to  the 
illustrious  orders."— -p.  36. 


14 


Similar  to  this  you  may  find 
facts  at  present  existing.  See 
the  attempt,  still  persevered  in, 
of  representing  the  old  school 
as  teaching  the  doctrine  of  a 
personal  identity  with  Adam — 
teaching  the  odious  doctrine  of 
fatalism,  leading  to  all  the  abo- 
minations of  Antinornianism — 
the  doctrine  of  physical  depra- 
vity— opposition  to  revivals  of 


158 


APPENDIX. 


religion — opposition  to  the  tem- 
perance reformation,  &:c. 


Dr.  Scott  adds  the  note,  "  It 
seems  a  sort  of  right  Inj  pre- 
scription to  Anti-Calvinists,  to 
misrepresent  and  bear  false  wit- 
ness against  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trines, and  those  who  hold 
them  ;  I  would  that  no  Calvinist 
had  ever  imitated  them  in  this 
respect" 


7.  Laxness  in  religious  belief  and  associations,  and  in  morals. 


"  Hence  the  pastors  attached 
to  Arminius  began  even  pub- 
licly to  defame  the  received 
doctrine.  Among  these,  a  cer- 
tain person  (called)  Adolphus 
Venator,  was  not  the  last ;  who, 
besides  that  he  was  of  too  little 
approved  a  life,  {vitcR  minus 
probatcB,)  openly  and  by  no 
means  in  a  dissembling  manner, 
scattered  abroad  Pelagian  and 
Socinian  errors  with  incredible 
impudence,  publicly  and  pri- 
vately ;  for  which  cause  he  was 
suspended  from  the  office  of 
teaching,  by  the  legitimate 
judgment  of  the  churches  of 
North  Holland,  and  a  few  other 
pastors  whom  he  had  dravrn 
over  into  his  opinion." — p.  29. 
"  Yet  this  man  did  Arminius 
take  as  one  of  his  coadjutors  in 
the  convention  of  the  states,  to 
debate  before  them  the  points 
of  doctrine." — page  30.  "  And 
when  the  orthodox  wished  to 
have  him  excluded,  '  Arminius 
vehemently  struggled  against 
it,'  and  succeeded." — p.  81. 

After  the  death  of  Arminius, 
(October  [19,  1609,)  the  whole 
power  and  influence  of  his  fol- 
lowers were  exerted  to  procure 
the  appointment  as  his  succes- 
sor of  *'  Conrad  us  Vorstius,  a 
professor  of  Steinfurt,  a  man  for 
many  years  justly  suspected  by 


Here  you  will  observe,  1.  A 
disregard  of  the  censures  of  the 
church,  when  a  party  purpose 
was  to  be  answered.  2.  A  de- 
termination to  sustain  the  man, 
even  though  immorality  was 
added  to  error  in  procuring  his 
suspension.  3.  Very  serious 
and  alarming  errors  did  not  dis- 
qualify from  a  professorship  of 
theology,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
RemonstranLs.  Vorstius  was 
unquestionably  a  Socinian;  and 
he  had  before  sufficiently  let 
out  his  poisonous  doctrines ;  yet 
they  pressed  his  appointment  by 
all  possible  means.  Is  there  not 
here  indubitable  evidence  of 
elective  affinity  between  the 
errors  set  forth  above,  and  the 
soul-destroying  doctrines  of  So- 
einus  ? 

Now  it  is  not  intended  here 
to  intimate  a  disposition  on  the 
part  of  our  new  school  brethren 
to  favour  either  immorality  or 
Socinianism.  I  have  proved  co- 
incidence of  doctrines  in  some 
specilic  points,  and  here  hold  up 
the  beacon  of  warning.  Lax- 
ness of  principle  must  lead  to 
laxness  of  practice  ;  and,  there- 
fore, all  error  hath  an  immoral 
tendency. 

It  is  perfectly  obvious,  more- 
over, that  the  denial  of  original 
sin  and  imputed  righteousness, 


APPENDIX.  159 

the  Reformed  churches  of  Soci-  of  itself  leads  to  confidence  in 

nianism." — p.  36-46.    "To  pre-  the  flesh,  and  so  to  immorality, 

vent  this,  the  orthodox  laboured  And  that  subscription  to  a  creed 

with   all    diligence,   and    king-  which  is  not  sincre  and  true,  is 

James  I.  of  England,  wrote  and  a  dereliction  from  correct  prin- 

used  all   his  influence  against  ciple,  and  may  lead  to  farther 

it." — p.  44.  deviations.      Let   us  avoid  all 

evil  and  all  appearance  of  evil. 

Let  these  cases  of  coincidence  in  doctrine  and  policy  be  duly 
considered,  and  then  let  the  reader  ask  himself,  do  they  not  prove 
identity  of  system?  Is  not  the  new  theology  of  the  nineteenth 
identically  the  same  with  the  new  theology  of  the  seventeenth 
century'?  It  will,  I  know,  be  said,  that  the  writer  exhibits  ano- 
ther example  of  tlie  policy  he  condemns.  He  is  endeavouring  to 
excite  odium  against  the  brethren  on  the  other  side.  He  denies 
and  disclaims  it.  He  does,  indeed,  ardently  desire  to  excite 
odium  against  the /fl^se  doctrines;  but  simply  with  a  view  to  their 
condemnation,  as  they  were  condemned  by  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
and  to  the  deliverance  of  his  brethren  both  from  the  errors  and 
from  the  policy  to  which  they  lead.  If  such  shall  be  the  result, 
as  he  fondly  hopes,  then  we  shall  soon  be  able  to  say,  "  Walk 
about  Zion,  and  go  round  about  her;  tell  the  towers  thereof. 
Mark  ye  well  her  bulwarks,  consider  her  palaces,  that  ye  may 
tell  it  to  the  generation  following.  For  this  God  is  our  God  for 
ever  and  ever  ;  he  will  be  our  guide  even  unto  death." 


Pnnctton  Theological  Seminary-Sp«r  Library 


1    1012  01145  271 


Date  Due 

■■illMMrrnwya     - — 

PW™*| 

^UMi^itr^ 

.»i#fV  ylTTq- 

'S 

f) 

